Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 357
  1. #141
    duLtDan
    Guest

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    I dont believe guns are at fault here. I have been in the Armed Services of Canada for 4 years now and I feel that a thought can do much more damage then a gun. People want the guns to disappear until they feel threatened then they want more. People are at fault here. A person makes his own choices and we will never understand why that choice was made. So do not try to get rid of a tool. Try and figure out a way to get inside the minds of those who might commit the crime

  2. #142
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    I do not fear guns. I fear morons with guns. and if you own more than one, not hunting gun, you ARE A PARANOID MORON.
    So you're saying that being interested in defending your life makes you a moron?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    If you are the owner of guns, then I do hereby declare my complete and udder distgust for you as a human being. This should not be taken personally, as I feel the same about many other people.
    I don't take it personally. I just don't care. This is a debate site so if you aren't offering a debate position (and just saying who you don't like is not a debate position) you aren't saying anything worthwhile.
    Last edited by mican333; January 13th, 2013 at 09:12 AM.

  3. #143
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post

    I think that 'gun control' is a lost cause due to 2nd amendment. Mass murders will continue occur regularly until the 2nd amendment is repealed or at least revised.
    Oh? So revising or repealing the 2nd Amendment will stop mass murders?





    I would also point out that a large portion of the explosives in both Iraq and Afghanistan are HME (home-made explosives).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  5. #144
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by duLtDan View Post
    So do not try to get rid of a tool. Try and figure out a way to get inside the minds of those who might commit the crime
    When the "tool's" primary function is to kill things, and people are using said "tool" to kill other people with it (thus, fulfilling the tools purpose) it IS time to think about why people are allowed to have such a tool...

    Welcome to ODN.
    .::The Swindall::.

    "...In the beginning, man created god"

  6. #145
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by SWINDALL
    When the "tool's" primary function is to kill things,
    I am not convinced that is a guns "Primary" function.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post510780
    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Gun & design

    Guns & bullets are designed to strike a target at range to effect. Hammers are designed to deliver force to an area. Knives are designed to slice and pierce.

    Everything else is application. Is an AR-15 designed to kill a person, or punch holes in paper targets in a small pattern at 100 yrds?
    I have used mine for the later much more than the former. .. .and it's darn fun. Better than a ticket to six flags.
    To serve man.

  7. #146
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not convinced that is a guns "Primary" function.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post510780
    Yea, there's a reason why you don't have to go through background checks or have a license to own a hammer or a knife...

    You ever wonder why that is?

    ** What's awful in all this... You are willing to argue over a object that gives you recreational pleasure whilst it is being used to mass murder people. Then have the audacity to give me a hammer and knife example - something that can be used to build, and something that can be used for food. Essentials to humanity.

    Notice I'm not arguing that gun's should be completely illegal, hunting rifles used for hunting (for food, clothing etc) should not be effected. However, for guns like a Bushmaster .223 caliber Remington semiautomatic gun to be legal... and then you compare said gun to a knife or hammer...

    I feel like this is basic stuff. Maybe I just come from a different culture, on the other side of the pond, living in a different super power. It wouldn't be acceptable for tragedies like this to happen, in such regular occurrence and have nothing happen here. I can assure you of that.
    Last edited by Swindall; January 13th, 2013 at 05:45 PM.
    .::The Swindall::.

    "...In the beginning, man created god"

  8. #147
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by SWINDALL
    Yea, there's a reason why you don't have to go through background checks or have a license to own a hammer or a knife...
    Really?.. Because knives and hammers were never used in warfare at all? They are not themselves tools effective at killing?

    Quote Originally Posted by SWINDALL
    You ever wonder why that is?
    Because of the illusion that it matters to the end result.

    Quote Originally Posted by SWINDALL
    ** What's awful in all this... You are willing to argue over a object that gives you recreational pleasure whilst it is being used to mass murder people. Then have the audacity to give me a hammer and knife example - something that can be used to build, and something that can be used for food. Essentials to humanity.
    No, I was arguing that the assumption that a "guns' purpose is to kill" is an unsound assumption. That it is preferred as a weapon is not a "purpose" argument. Hence the Knife and hammer example. Both were once "preferred" means of killing. Their purpose has not changed, only their use. You appear to have exchanged your emotion for an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by SWINDALL
    Notice I'm not arguing that gun's should be completely illegal, hunting rifles used for hunting (for food, clothing etc) should not be effected. However, for guns like a Bushmaster .223 caliber Remington semiautomatic gun to be legal... and then you compare said gun to a knife or hammer...
    I don't have to justify that it should be legal, the burden is on those that wish to take away my rights.
    The argument from "purpose" is flawed, and I gave reason why.

    Quote Originally Posted by SWINDALL
    I feel like this is basic stuff. Maybe I just come from a different culture, on the other side of the pond, living in a different super power. It wouldn't be acceptable for tragedies like this to happen, in such regular occurrence and have nothing happen here. I can assure you of that.
    First no one is arguing that nothing should change. I argue to get rid of the "gun free" zones which are the target of these events. The big debate here is about what should happen. The fact that outlawing the .223 caliber semiautomaitc gun would have zero effect on the outcome is an important distinction.

    Across the pond they may have been happy to hand over their guns and rights to the gov for bogus argumentation and the illusion of safety. Here we are not, and value our rights. But here, none of your emotional appeal is a counter to my point.

    If you are going to argue that the "purpose" of a gun is to kill, then you will have to admit the same for a knife or a hammer. My argument can make a distinction between them, I don't believe yours does other than to randomly attribute whatever you "feel" onto them. Knives are not worthy of Gov control, because they are not so scary. Yet they were used to kill thousands of people each year in modern times, and were standard equipment to the army throughout history. Do you imagine that the recent school killings could not occur with a sword? Or that a wild swordman couldn't kill so many in a theater? I wonder how many such a man could kill without the distinct sound of a gunshot to warn everyone else. No, don't worry about that, lets get rid of that Bushmaster!
    To serve man.

  9. #148
    CapitalBlue
    Guest

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    May I interject.
    I agree with the idea that a guns purpose is not in fact set to any task in particular. A gun is a tool. It's well known for it's ability to kill, and this is where I think the fear of it originates. The original function of a gun was to make it easy to eliminate enemies. "Was". However that doesn't change the fact that the application of the tool is not up to the tool it's self, but the yielder.

    Now to respond to this fact by assuming that either the yielder or the firearm should be taken out of the equation to save lives would be unreasonable. Because the source of death is neither the owner or the gun, it is lethal intent. Something that is very hard to weed out of a society and so easy solutions are put in place to make up for this.

    We are here to figure out if anything can be done to the circulation of guns to reduce crime. That is without taking away rights.

    Getting rid of guns does not get rid of lethal intent, nor does getting rid of people. That's one thing that is well established.

  10. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  11. #149
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by CapitalBlue View Post
    It's well known for it's ability to kill, and this is where I think the fear of it originates.
    Ignorance of anything is what enables fear of that thing. If you don't know how something functions, you will imagine all sorts of terrifying things it can do.

    Just look at all of the absurd and silly things that most filmmakers show firearms doing. Even an amateur or hobbyist knows enough about how firearms function that ruins most action movies. For example, every time any supposed soldier or LEO displays a complete lack of trigger discipline.

    Quote Originally Posted by CapitalBlue View Post
    We are here to figure out if anything can be done to the circulation of guns to reduce crime.

    Getting rid of guns does not get rid of lethal intent, nor does getting rid of people.
    I believe you've supplied the answer. If lethal intent is the problem, then firearms are not.

    Therefore, there is no need to waste our time on trying to do anything about non-problems.
    "... freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

  12. #150
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swindall View Post
    Notice I'm not arguing that gun's should be completely illegal, hunting rifles used for hunting (for food, clothing etc) should not be effected. However, for guns like a Bushmaster .223 caliber Remington semiautomatic gun to be legal... and then you compare said gun to a knife or hammer...
    So you are saying this should be illegal:


    But this should not?



    I think your distinction between a hunting rifle and a non-hunting rifle is arbitrary at best.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  14. #151
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    @SQUATCH, Clearly the former is more "lethal" because the army uses it. I mean, if someone really, really wanted to kill you, wouldn't you rather be shot at with the latter? It looks almost cute in comparison to that ugly black "ASSAULT RIFLE" (Dramatic music)
    To serve man.

  15. #152
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @SQUATCH, Clearly the former is more "lethal" because the army uses it. I mean, if someone really, really wanted to kill you, wouldn't you rather be shot at with the latter? It looks almost cute in comparison to that ugly black "ASSAULT RIFLE" (Dramatic music)
    Indeed, except no army that I know of uses it. Its a .22LR. Its a pop gun. The lethality on the weapon rivals a powerful pellet gun. The latter uses high velocity rounds, carries 20 rounds (no magazine so the ban doesn't apply), fires almost as fast and has a 30-30 round that will cavitation in flesh, removing organs, causing shock damage and creating a large exit wound.

    People who argue that they want to remove Assault weapons, but not hunting weapons do so purely out of ignorance of what weapons they are talking about imo.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #153
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    I did mistake it for the .223 version.. should have noticed the magazine difference.

    But squatch, you can kill a person with a .22LR. If you shoot them in the eye.. they are going to die. Also, it is sooo easy to re-load.
    To serve man.

  17. #154
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I did mistake it for the .223 version.. should have noticed the magazine difference.

    But squatch, you can kill a person with a .22LR. If you shoot them in the eye.. they are going to die. Also, it is sooo easy to re-load.
    I know, its exactly the same amount of time it takes to reload the second rifle ;-) Given an auto-loader (which you can manufacture in your house) the reload times are virtually indistinguishable.

    Neither weapons is particularly effective at the close quarters type of shooting that the school massacre was. A handgun would have provided a much more effective defense than the AR-15 variant used by the shooter at Newton.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #155
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by duLtDan View Post
    I dont believe guns are at fault here. I have been in the Armed Services of Canada for 4 years now and I feel that a thought can do much more damage then a gun.
    So do we make 'Thought' a crime? What about free expression? or Speech? or Religion? or the lack of Religion? or Press? or Association? Thoughts may do more damage, but good thoughts are good, there is no potential for good with a gun.
    People want the guns to disappear until they feel threatened then they want more. People are at fault here. A person makes his own choices and we will never understand why that choice was made. So do not try to get rid of a tool. Try and figure out a way to get inside the minds of those who might commit the crime
    So lets ban anyone with a low IQ or without a high school diploma from living freely outside out a secure facility. What about banning people with any sort of mental illness from living outside of a jail? What about banning anyone who has broken the law previously from owning a gun?

    Your assertion that "guns dont kill people, people kill people" is a valid one, one that I dont share, but a valid one none the less. If this is trully your belief then you must be willing to deal with it accordingly. Am I right?

    ---------- Post added at 08:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Oh? So revising or repealing the 2nd Amendment will stop mass murders?





    I would also point out that a large portion of the explosives in both Iraq and Afghanistan are HME (home-made explosives).
    When did I ever suggest that repealing the 2nd amendment would alter human nature and end mass murder? It wont end them, but it would help to prevent gun-related mass murders from happening in the first place.

    You can all the armed guards and SWAT teams you want, but that is a reactionary response and not a preventative response.

    You want mitigate the impact of mass murders, not prevent them from happening in the first place.

    ---------- Post added at 09:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have 7 guns.
    Ar-15 (Evil Newtown version, make and model)
    12gauge pump shotgun (love it)
    1911 Rock River Armory
    Springfield XDM 40
    Daisy Red Rider (I haven't shot my eye out)
    Daisy Powerline 201
    Crosman P10 Phantom
    (not actual pictures of my alleged weapons)
    Good for you, my friend.

    The first 4 are mine, and the last 3 are my kids (if you couldn't guess)... though I have to say the Red Rider is very fun. all are officially "lost" if anyone is asking , but I'm sure I could find one if someone tried to break into the house
    You let your kids have guns? OK, dad........Your gonna shoot your head off.

    I know this classifies me as a "moron" in your view,
    Good observation.
    and as I have a gun you say you fear me.
    Yes, you could say that I 'fear' ignorance.
    To that I must say you may have good reason to fear me. You should fear me if you break into my home.
    And when did I ever lay out my plan to break into your house? The people that break into houses are just as big of morons as those who want to stand thier ground and murder anyone and everyone who may or may not be threatening their life, liberty, and or property.
    You should fear me if I find out you did or are attempting to; kidnapped,rape,kill,attack or otherwise threaten with bodily harm, my children or my family.
    and now because I have openly and publicly refused to employ violence and a means, as well as a refusal to use guns or violent weapondry as a tool, I am now the potential kidnapper, rapist, murderer, or some other kind of violent criminal, that is plotting against your family and children. Really dude? If anything, my open refusal to use violence of any sort should comfort you, not scare you. Am I the fearer, or the fearee, here?
    You should fear me if by some means the gov tries to do the same. You should fear me the day the gov comes to my door seeking to relieve me or my fellow citizens of our God given rights.
    Anyone who beleive that violence is an effective means to thier ends, is a complete and udder moron. Anyone who beleives that the best way to reflect a tyrannical government is to begin to murder in the name of patriotism, or freedom, or the constitution or whatever. If this supposed 2nd american civil war comes about, I will be the first one to label any and all combatants on any side that are utilizing violence as a means of securing their life, liberty, and property, as a moron of epic proportions, and not only a complete moron, but a self-loathing, follower, ignorant moron, that beleives that murder will be the most effective means.

    If however, you are not seeking any of those things, then your fear is irrational. You are afraid of me like one who is afraid of

    This
    Attachment 3353


    You make the mistake and think it is this

    Attachment 3354

    The second is venomous the first is non-venomous.
    Oh, right. Because the first gun wont kill me because it isnt venomous, but the second gun will kill me because it is venomous. Guns dont work like that.

    It is because I am responsible for protecting those in my charge from those things that I have guns(allegedly). It is because I am taking responsibility to the best of my ability in protecting my family from all who should fear me and the gov they seek to create. These things make me "inherently irresponsible" in your view, and I can respect that.
    I beleive that passing on a culture of fear, ignorance and violence is "inherently irresponsible". John Adams thought wed be past that stage in human existance by now, but instead of allowing the younger generations to live above fear, ignorance and violence, we teach them that it is virtuous to employ fear, ignorance and violence as a means of furthuring your self in life.
    It is good to know where we stand. Indeed these are the ideological battle lines. I feel it is irresponsible to deny those responsibilities exist, or to deny others the means to protect themselves (which I see you are happy to do).
    You may be a moron, but there are sentimental morons, who are sincere in thier beleifs. I respect someone who is brave enough to think for themselves. I do not seek to change your mind for you, at best youll think of something better than me and devote your life to employing what you beleive is right. I can only change myself and I can only have one opinion. This is the same for everyone.

    However, your idea of "irresponsible" and "moron" as well as your "fear" is all misplaced and non-reflective of reality. Nor is it proportional to reality. Evidenced (I'm betting) by your lack of equivalent hatred for cars.
    I dont hate cars, I dont hate guns. I dont hate anything. I feel sorry for people who think that murder and violence is the only way. I feel sorry for ignorant people, who want to regress back into the 18th century, or whose minds work like they live in the 18th century. the 2nd amendment did not forsee the advances in 'murder technology' nor the lack of advance in the human mind.

    I would very much like to see more people use mass-transit and other public transport instead of cars.


    So, I'm very glad you voiced your opinion, and I'm very sorry to hear that you are afraid of anyone with a gun. (P.S. do police count?)
    Firefighters sole job is to 'save' live. A police officers is just a glorified mafioso, who wields a big stick.
    I believe that if you wish you could seek consoling and overcome your fear.
    Gun Therepy: OK, Bob, go stand in front of the target with your vest on and we'll shoot at you until you are no longer afraid of guns or violence or ignorance. Just accept it Bob.
    Thankfully there are organizations willing to help you face your fears such as "front site", who's understanding and compassionate counselors work with people in just your situation. I'm sure they have a "help" hot-line.
    Bob: Hello, operator, im think that people who feel the need to protect thier bodies by using violent means are morons. Operator: No worry my son, with time you will learn to accept violence and ignorance and you will finally be able to see THE WAY and you will love your country unconditionally and you pay to support the military and you will kill animals for enjoyment and you will feel the need to go practice at a shootin' range where you can socialize with other brave, patriotic, god-fearn' americans who respect thier holy right to own and bear any sort of weapondry we please.

    Good luck.
    The same.

  19. #156
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    When did I ever suggest that repealing the 2nd amendment would alter human nature and end mass murder? It wont end them, but it would help to prevent gun-related mass murders from happening in the first place.
    How so? Until recently England and Germany had the the top three school shooting incidents, they don't have anything equivalent to the 2nd Amendment. How will removing lawful access to weapons prevent unlawful access to weapons?

    So mass murders are somehow morally different if they are committed with gun than with a bomb? 20 murder victims from gunshot wounds is more tragic than 20 murder victims from explosives? If not, who cares if repealing stops gun related killings, if it won't affect the total number of killings, what relevance does it have?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret
    You want mitigate the impact of mass murders, not prevent them from happening in the first place.
    Your logic here is a bit tortured. You first (in the above quote) argue that mass murders aren't preventable, then here argue they are. Which is it?



    Lets also put all the cards on the table. What policy exactly would you put forward that would stop these mass killings? Be specific.

    ---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    You let your kids have guns? OK, dad........Your gonna shoot your head off.
    Please notice the red color, this is me speaking as a mod. Please elaborate on your statement here, this could be interpreted as a borderline trolling or harassing statement and I think before MT responds you should clarify your intent. Thank you.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #157
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How so? Until recently England and Germany had the the top three school shooting incidents, they don't have anything equivalent to the 2nd Amendment. How will removing lawful access to weapons prevent unlawful access to weapons?
    Challenge to support a claim. What evidence do you have? Sources I mean?

    So mass murders are somehow morally different if they are committed with gun than with a bomb?
    No violence is violence.
    20 murder victims from gunshot wounds is more tragic than 20 murder victims from explosives?
    Bombs are illegal. Are they not?
    If not, who cares if repealing stops gun related killings, if it won't affect the total number of killings, what relevance does it have?
    So if we ban guns, bomb homicides will rise? How many bomb-related murders are there in the US every year? How many gun murders are there in the US every year?


    Your logic here is a bit tortured. You first (in the above quote) argue that mass murders aren't preventable, then here argue they are. Which is it?
    They may not be completely preventable. But that doesnt mean inaction is the answer. It is certainly possible to prevent mass murders, but they likely are not going to be eradicated anytime soon, or at least as long as we continue to glorify violence.



    Lets also put all the cards on the table. What policy exactly would you put forward that would stop these mass killings? Be specific.
    Repeal the 2nd amendment. It cant be much more simple than that. It is legal to own whatever guns anyone wants. The Supreme Court said so. The only way to ban guns, is to repeal the 2nd amendment. or at least change it.

    ---------- Post added at 09:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please notice the red color, this is me speaking as a mod. Please elaborate on your statement here, this could be interpreted as a borderline trolling or harassing statement and I think before MT responds you should clarify your intent. Thank you.
    This is simply my response to a dad that is proud of providing his children with deadly weapons. If expressing my opinion qualifies as 'trolling' then what is the point of saying anything at all?

  21. Likes eye4magic liked this post
  22. #158
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. What evidence do you have? Sources I mean?
    Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ings-john-fund

    Now that I've dealt with that objection, would you care to respond to the body of the response? IE How will removing lawful access to weapons prevent unlawful access to weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret
    No violence is violence.
    Fine, then what argument are you really putting forward here? If removing tool X won't stop action Y because tool Z works just as well, but it will stop lawful citizens from using tool X to prevent action Y, why are we considering it?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret
    Bombs are illegal. Are they not?
    And how well has that legislation worked out on preventing their use?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret
    So if we ban guns, bomb homicides will rise? How many bomb-related murders are there in the US every year? How many gun murders are there in the US every year?
    That wasn't my argument. My argument was that those predisposed to commit mass killings will do so regardless of legislation, they will pick whatever tool is available to do so, banning guns will not stop them from carrying out their actions.

    But since you mentioned it, banning guns won't necessarily mean that bomb homicides will rise, but homicides will. They rose in England after their handgun ban (see page 10). And in the US you are more likely to be murdered if you live in a state with no right to carry laws than a state that allows lawful citizens to possess and carry fire arms.

    My favorite quote: “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Hcabret
    They may not be completely preventable. But that doesnt mean inaction is the answer. It is certainly possible to prevent mass murders, but they likely are not going to be eradicated anytime soon, or at least as long as we continue to glorify violence.
    I totally agree, action is required. The fact that of the last 72 mass shootings, 69 have occurred in "gun free" zones combined with the fact that a mass shooting stopped by a citizen had an average of 2.2 fatalities while a mass shooting stopped by a police officer averaged 18.6 argues for clear action, we must repeal idiotic restrictions on lawful citizens' ability to defend themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hcabret
    It is legal to own whatever guns anyone wants. The Supreme Court said so.
    You realize that this isn't factually true right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hcabret
    Repeal the 2nd amendment. It cant be much more simple than that. It is legal to own whatever guns anyone wants. The Supreme Court said so. The only way to ban guns, is to repeal the 2nd amendment. or at least change it.
    Ok, so lets say you are king, it is repealed. How does that stop me from using a firearm tomorrow or a bomb and killing 20 people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hcabret
    This is simply my response to a dad that is proud of providing his children with deadly weapons. If expressing my opinion qualifies as 'trolling' then what is the point of saying anything at all?
    You have not clarified your position here. What opinion are you stating here? Please elaborate on what opinion you were trying to put forward exactly when you said:

    "Your gonna shoot your head off."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  23. #159
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hoodsport, wa
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by alex62303 View Post
    Well, looking at recent mass shootings, several were committed using legally purchased and registered weapons, so that suggests that more gun control should have a positive impact. Of course, those who are determined enough and those with criminal ties will still be able to get their hands on whatever weapons they desire, but the goal should be to make this as hard as possible.
    awww alex, really?
    first off, can you give a general proposal on how you are going to set up a system by which a person can walk into a gun shop and be immediately found to be insane and thinking of doing bad things? please, i would really be interested in hearing how you propose to do this.

    2. i have a more practical example. since you cannot achieve your goal of a gun free society here, may i suggest you move to mexico which has some of the most stringent gun laws on the planet. find you dream. it already exists in the next country south.

    and when you get there, how bout sending us all a message back to let us know how wonderful it is to finally live in a land of real gun control.

    because really alex, do you belong in a free republic?
    i fear the fate of all mankind is in the hands of fools.....
    -king crimson-

  24. #160
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

    Puma -

    Thing of it is, there are places with little to no gun control that are hellholes, and places that have strict gun control that are very nice, and vise-versa

    If you live in a country with a high risk of assault then it makes sense to own a weapon. If you live in a country with a low rate of assault, it doesn't make much sense. Guns don't make violence or prevent violence, they are a tool for violent conflict and will be desired if you have violent conflict.

    I think it is a mistake to see them as a cause of peace or violence. The only control they can exert is if you have a group that is bent on starting violence, they make it easier to do so. Find a bunch of distracted angry people and give them stronger armaments, and they will become more dangerous. (A good example is in Malli right now, the rebels there got arms from Kadafi's fall and what was a minor problem blew up into a civil war scale conflict due to the addition of many more armaments.)

    But I don't think in america there is a pool of disaffected people denied arms or that if we tighten arms control it will be enough to reduce the arms already available to them. We are better served by keeping law enforcement effective and restricting the number of dissaffected people (of course sometimes those two things are at odds with one another)
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Guns Kill
    By Clicky in forum General Debate
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: November 13th, 2015, 07:39 PM
  2. Do you believe guns kill people?
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: December 21st, 2013, 11:51 AM
  3. Moral Dilemma: To Kill Him or not to Kill him
    By Idunno in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2009, 12:57 AM
  4. Does it just kill people to admit the facts?
    By Sigfried in forum Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: September 24th, 2008, 06:15 PM
  5. Al-Qaeda tries to kill 80,000 people
    By Apokalupsis in forum Current Events
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 26th, 2004, 02:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •