Gun Control

[BabyPiglet]

Lol, naturally.

No offense, but what is that supposed to mean?

 

[schmitty]

people can either use the tool, hammer, baseball bat, or gun, or we could use primitive tools. Rocks, sticks, and a sword.

Either way, we're still using tools

Yup tools with specific purposes. The specific purpose of a gun is to kill.

 

[MuNkY]

Yup tools with specific purposes. The specific purpose of a gun is to kill.

What she means is that the gun didn't pick it'self up and pull it's own trigger and shoot those people. That kid did. Ultimately he used the gun to shoot those people. It's the same way in every instance.

Your basically blaming the gun for killing the people. Lets say he didn't have a gun and use a bow and arrow. Are you going to blame the bow and arrow for killing the person? What if he used a sword. Going to blame the sword for it?

Personally I perfer calling the kid a wacko and blaming him for the deaths. Not the gun. If the gun wasn't in his hands, it wouldn't have killed those people. HE was responsible for it.

 

[Sparx]

What she means is that the gun didn't pick it'self up and pull it's own trigger and shoot those people. That kid did. Ultimately he used the gun to shoot those people. It's the same way in every instance.

Your basically blaming the gun for killing the people. Lets say he didn't have a gun and use a bow and arrow. Are you going to blame the bow and arrow for killing the person? What if he used a sword. Going to blame the sword for it?

Personally I perfer calling the kid a wacko and blaming him for the deaths. Not the gun. If the gun wasn't in his hands, it wouldn't have killed those people. HE was responsible for it.

He would have.

Except, he would've used a bomb or poison or something like that.

More people could possibly be dead.

 

[MuNkY]

He would have.

Except, he would've used a bomb or poison or something like that.

More people could possibly be dead.

I was talking about the gun itself though.

Also, where do we draw the line to where the person is to blame for the death, and not what they used? Does it have to come down to the person strangling the victim to death, or is it then their hands comitting the crime? Do we ban hands and amputate everybody's hands?

I hate to make the comparison, but we don't say that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were caused by boxcutters. We blame the whacko terrorists. I don't see the difference between that and this in the terms of what the person used, and who, or what for that case, takes the blame. That dude killed people, and happened to use a gun. Does this mean all guns are horrible, and that we should ban them forever and ever? No, for the sheer fact that, well, he could've used anything. Let's say he bashed them over the head with a computer. Do we ban computers?

 

[Sparx]

I was talking about the gun itself though.

Also, where do we draw the line to where the person is to blame for the death, and not what they used? Does it have to come down to the person strangling the victim to death, or is it then their hands comitting the crime? Do we ban hands and amputate everybody's hands?

I hate to make the comparison, but we don't say that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were caused by boxcutters. We blame the whacko terrorists. I don't see the difference between that and this in the terms of what the person used, and who, or what for that case, takes the blame. That dude killed people, and happened to use a gun. Does this mean all guns are horrible, and that we should ban them forever and ever? No, for the sheer fact that, well, he could've used anything. Let's say he bashed them over the head with a computer. Do we ban computers?

The day a gun shoots someone, I will whole heartedly get behind the "ban guns" campaign.

Oh, and let me know when pencils start misspelling words.

 

[schmitty]

Box cutters are used for cutting boxes. That analogy is wrong and useless. Yes I would blame the sword or bow and arrow because they are tools made for one specific purpose, to kill.
Bomb and poison analogy is another horrible example. The amount of deaths caused by that in the US in attempts to kill others is astronomically smaller than the deaths caused by guns. Its far less likely for someone to go out and make a bomb and kill someone. Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people. If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then. Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.

 

[TheBellhop]

Lol, naturally.

lol lol lol.

 

[MuNkY]

Box cutters are used for cutting boxes. That analogy is wrong and useless. Yes I would blame the sword or bow and arrow because they are tools made for one specific purpose, to kill.
Bomb and poison analogy is another horrible example. The amount of deaths caused by that in the US in attempts to kill others is astronomically smaller than the deaths caused by guns. Its far less likely for someone to go out and make a bomb and kill someone. Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people. If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then. Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.

So your going to sit there and tell me that because it originally has a different use it's okay for someone to use it as a weapon? What if I told you the Chinese invented gunpowder, NOT for war? What if I told you that this magical substance that sparked the age of the gun was originally inteded, and used for construction and entertainment. So some guy comes over to China, finds gunpowder, and makes a cannon using gunpowder as a propulsion device. But under your agruement, it was fine because that's not what gunpowder was used for.

Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people.

Umm, neither of us were. We were using valid arguements to help prove our points. You point out that the bomb and poison death rate is smaller than the gun death rate. Well alright. We ban guns. You DO realize however, that if you did that, banning guns I mean, it's not going to stop these crazies from killing people right? They're STILL going to try to kill as many people as possible. The rate of deaths by the means of poison and bombs will only go up if you ban guns.

If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then.

Congratulations. You just contradicted your arguement you just said.

Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.

Not really. I mean, you'd be suprised how easy it is to make a pretty powerful bomb. It might have been harder for him to kill those people, but he still would've done it. Also not to mention, a few well placed bombs would take out a lot more people. You'd be dealing with a radius of destruction rather than individual cases.

 

[Sparx]

Box cutters are used for cutting boxes. That analogy is wrong and useless. Yes I would blame the sword or bow and arrow because they are tools made for one specific purpose, to kill.
Bomb and poison analogy is another horrible example. The amount of deaths caused by that in the US in attempts to kill others is astronomically smaller than the deaths caused by guns. Its far less likely for someone to go out and make a bomb and kill someone. Don't try to use BS scare tactics to try to convince people. If planes where banned then the terrorists at 9/11 would have used nukes and MORE people would have died then. Obviously a bomb would cause more harm than a gun but it is much harder to get a bomb because it is ILLEGAL. If guns were illegal it would have been much harder for him to kill those people.

I've not used any "BS scare tactics". I don't think I need them. It only makes your argument appear weaker by calling mine "bs"

If you make guns unavailable, bombs, poison, etc will become the main means of murder. They're simply not used right now becuase guns.

As I've stated before, illegal=/=gone. Drugs are illegal, but I can make three phone calls right now and get anything I want.

Its much easier to make a bomb than it is to buy a gun. I know how to make a bomb, but I can't buy a gun.

 

[tinkerbell12]

Something about the guy with the cell being involved on NBC...

 

[Lil_Tink]

I'm pro peace. But, I know that the world will most likely not be at peace, so there for guns will be around. IMHO if a person wants to kill a person, they will find a way. Tighten up licensing but a person could easily use someone elses gun.

And I didn't read all 5 pages so sorry if I am totally off topic now.

 

[tinkerbell12]

If you make guns unavailable, bombs, poison, etc will become the main means of murder. They're simply not used right now becuase guns.

As I've stated before, illegal=/=gone. Drugs are illegal, but I can make three phone calls right now and get anything I want.

!!!!!!

 

[BabyPiglet]

"Banning" guns is not going to do anything. Murderers will just go by different means of killing people. Whether it be bomb, poison, knifes, they're still going to kill.

And by "banning" guns people could still get them. We just make them readily available, but just by banning htem, you're not going to stop people from using them.