I hate guns.

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
There is 811,000 google hits for "attacked with a baseball bat", can anyone explain to me why baseball bats should not be outlawed, but guns should be?

After all, a baseball bat has no useful purpose outside of attacking and entertainment. Even a gun is more useful as a tool.

I am a gun owner myself and I can't even understand why people would make such stupid arguments. You can't kill 6 people from 30 feet with a baseball bat.

Is that a bet? Can they be midgets?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
So my good buddy just got his gun stolen out of his car, along with other stuff. It was his carry weapon. Another gun on the street. This is why I hate guns.

guns don't steal guns. people steal guns. :Q

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: dNor

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
There is 811,000 google hits for "attacked with a baseball bat", can anyone explain to me why baseball bats should not be outlawed, but guns should be?

After all, a baseball bat has no useful purpose outside of attacking and entertainment. Even a gun is more useful as a tool.

I am a gun owner myself and I can't even understand why people would make such stupid arguments. You can't kill 6 people from 30 feet with a baseball bat.

Is that a bet? Can they be midgets?

LOL!
Very well played, good sir.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
There is 811,000 google hits for "attacked with a baseball bat", can anyone explain to me why baseball bats should not be outlawed, but guns should be?

After all, a baseball bat has no useful purpose outside of attacking and entertainment. Even a gun is more useful as a tool.

I am a gun owner myself and I can't even understand why people would make such stupid arguments. You can't kill 6 people from 30 feet with a baseball bat.

That only proves my point. Zing!

The vast majority of people couldn't hit, let alone kill, 6 moving people at a distance of 30 feet even with a gun.

ZV

 

[judasmachine]

many end up on the streets from burglaries of secure households. there isn't someone home all the time, and many times the thieves take entire safes. that said, i still support the right to own one. it's a two way street, and it's hard to be on one side, and not see the other.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: hiromizu
Guns kill people too easily. The less guns out there the more peace. Let the police do their job, don't do it yourself. It's that simple.

That is not correct.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes.

lol

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
There is 811,000 google hits for "attacked with a baseball bat", can anyone explain to me why baseball bats should not be outlawed, but guns should be?

After all, a baseball bat has no useful purpose outside of attacking and entertainment. Even a gun is more useful as a tool.

I am a gun owner myself and I can't even understand why people would make such stupid arguments. You can't kill 6 people from 30 feet with a baseball bat.

That only proves my point. Zing!

The vast majority of people couldn't hit, let alone kill, 6 moving people at a distance of 30 feet even with a gun.

ZV

That's correct. They'll probably hit unintended audiences instead. Hence, don't do the police work yourself.

 

[oiprocs]

I think a CCW permit would be useful if handled maturely. Especially if you live in a big city and walk home from work at night.

 

[the unknown]

I dunno. I like to consider myself a realist on a lot of things. And if you take away guns, it will just be substituted with something else. But guns aren't cool. I think they're pretty hate-able. Think of all the people that have died in wars to guns. WWI, WW2... A machine designed to kill, so easily and effectively. It doesn't take much effort. That 8yo that killed his father was made only possible by a gun. He could have used no other object that I can think of to kill his father. Anything else the father could have stopped, or would be too difficult for the child to use.

People that own and use guns have two main defenses.

Originally posted by: ric1287
a gun laying on the street doesn't kill anyone.

"A gun isn't innately dangerous." Well great, but that easily disproved. Just say that guns were on every street lying there. Would you feel safe? No, because people are idiots. And guns are dangerous in the hands of stupid people. The worst part is, a lot of stupid people don't know they're stupid. So saying guns should be in the hands of only smart people doesn't work when any generic idiot can walk off the street and buy one.

Originally posted by: irishScott
You know alcohol kills more people each year than guns right? God I hate alcohol now. :roll:

Add the numbers from all the world wars and tally that number again. Plus isn't a fair comparison. People don't use alcohol to kill other people. Or cars. Or heart disease. I'm sure if you compared what people use to kill one another, guns would be at the top. Unless bombs killed more people, but there are a hell of a lot more guns out there then bombs.

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes. Police are there to figure out whodunit after the crimes have been committed. I prefer crime prevention myself.

Bwahahaha I just read this. The thought that some gun owners think they're Batman (irony, I know) and stop crimes from happening is laughable. A small minority of gun owners, I know, but still.

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: hiromizu
Guns kill people too easily. The less guns out there the more peace. Let the police do their job, don't do it yourself. It's that simple.

That is not correct.

The true answer can easily be bent towards a lesser answer through speculative reasoning and internet anonymity cannot convey my credibility through your judgment of my character through words alone but you'll just have to trust me on this one, I'm a right leaning fascist with no interest in your opinion. I am correct.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes.

lol

Why are you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NY City? Why is the burglary rate greater in the UK than it is in the US? Why do criminals surveyed in prisons routinely list armed citizens as a much greater worry than the police?

ZV

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

That's correct. They'll probably hit unintended audiences instead. Hence, don't do the police work yourself.

lol, I don't think you fully understand what little space a bullet travels through in the massive volume of available space on a slight curve.

Aimed fire hits targets, un-aimed fire very rarely hits anything significant. This also happens to be why machine guns are no more deadly then a semi-automatic.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: the unknown
I dunno. I like to consider myself a realist on a lot of things. And if you take away guns, it will just be substituted with something else. But guns aren't cool. I think they're pretty hate-able. Think of all the people that have died in wars to guns. WWI, WW2... A machine designed to kill, so easily and effectively. It doesn't take much effort. That 8yo that killed his father was made only possible by a gun. He could have used no other object that I can think of to kill his father. Anything else the father could have stopped, or would be too difficult for the child to use.

People that own and use guns have two main defenses.

Originally posted by: ric1287
a gun laying on the street doesn't kill anyone.

A gun isn't innately dangerous. Well great, but that easily disproved. Just say that guns were on every street lying there. Would you feel safe? No, because people are idiots. And guns are dangerous in the hands of stupid people. The worst part is, a lot of stupid people don't know they're stupid. So saying guns should be in the hands of only smart people doesn't work when any generic idiot can walk off the street and buy one.

Hence the reason we have laws/permits and things of that sort preventing people from (legally) walking into walgreens for a gun.

And using your argument, a car is not innately dangerous, but they sure as hell let a lot of stupid people operate them and kill people. Same logic.

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes.

lol

Why are you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NY City? Why is the burglary rate greater in the UK than it is in the US? Why do criminals surveyed in prisons routinely list armed citizens as a much greater worry than the police?

ZV

Well you know that the Europeans are in general lazy and laid back so people tend to become a little loose in doing their jobs but getting burglarized is probably better than getting injured or murdered don't you think?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
There is 811,000 google hits for "attacked with a baseball bat", can anyone explain to me why baseball bats should not be outlawed, but guns should be?

After all, a baseball bat has no useful purpose outside of attacking and entertainment. Even a gun is more useful as a tool.

I am a gun owner myself and I can't even understand why people would make such stupid arguments. You can't kill 6 people from 30 feet with a baseball bat.

That only proves my point. Zing!

The vast majority of people couldn't hit, let alone kill, 6 moving people at a distance of 30 feet even with a gun.

ZV

That's correct. They'll probably hit unintended audiences instead. Hence, don't do the police work yourself.

*blows whistle* Illegal shifting of arguments. 15 yard penalty and loss of down.

- The initial argument was that guns allowed people with bad intent to "kill 6 people from 30 feet".
- I pointed out that this is unlikely given the (lack of) skill that most criminals have with their weapons.
- You then proceeded to shift the argument 180 degrees to a hypothetical situation where there are 6 attackers and the person with the firearm is innocent.

That's an entirely different situation and therefore it is irrational to expect my previous response to apply.

In the latter situation, assuming that there is no reliable backstop beyond the attackers and that the area is crowded, the lone defender should obviously not fire on the attackers. That's part of the 4 most basic rules of firearms use. Know your target and know what is beyond it. If you cannot take a shot without risking bystanders, you do not take a shot at all. No CCW holder would fire in the situation you describe.

ZV

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: the unknown
I dunno. I like to consider myself a realist on a lot of things. And if you take away guns, it will just be substituted with something else. But guns aren't cool. I think they're pretty hate-able. Think of all the people that have died in wars to guns. WWI, WW2... A machine designed to kill, so easily and effectively. It doesn't take much effort. That 8yo that killed his father was made only possible by a gun. He could have used no other object that I can think of to kill his father. Anything else the father could have stopped, or would be too difficult for the child to use.

People that own and use guns have two main defenses.

Originally posted by: ric1287
a gun laying on the street doesn't kill anyone.

A gun isn't innately dangerous. Well great, but that easily disproved. Just say that guns were on every street lying there. Would you feel safe? No, because people are idiots. And guns are dangerous in the hands of stupid people. The worst part is, a lot of stupid people don't know they're stupid. So saying guns should be in the hands of only smart people doesn't work when any generic idiot can walk off the street and buy one.

Hence the reason we have laws/permits and things of that sort preventing people from (legally) walking into walgreens for a gun.

And using your argument, a car is on innately dangerous, but they sure as hell let a lot of stupid people operate them and kill people. Same logic.

Laws and permits don't stop those idiots from ultimately getting the guns. It just takes them 3 days longer.

Your second point is clearly addressed if you just included the entire quote.

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: irishScott
You know alcohol kills more people each year than guns right? God I hate alcohol now. :roll:

Add the numbers from all the world wars and tally that number again. Plus isn't a fair comparison. People don't use alcohol to kill other people. Or cars. Or heart disease. I'm sure if you compared what people use to kill one another, guns would be at the top. Unless bombs killed more people, but there are a hell of a lot more guns out there then bombs.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes.

lol

Why are you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NY City? Why is the burglary rate greater in the UK than it is in the US? Why do criminals surveyed in prisons routinely list armed citizens as a much greater worry than the police?

ZV

Well you know that the Europeans are in general lazy and laid back so people tend to become a little loose in doing their jobs but getting burglarized is probably better than getting injured or murdered don't you think?

Then why have these vast increases in muggings and burglaries correlated so neatly with the banning of firearms in the UK?

ZV

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The vast majority of people couldn't hit, let alone kill, 6 moving people at a distance of 30 feet even with a gun.

ZV

Cue up the videos of robberies where a clerk pulls out a gun and both people unload and don't hit each other from across the counter.

The point of my argument was that many people state that there is "no purpose of guns", while many other dangerous things also have no purpose, yet there is never a thought about them.

The stats in the UK do also bring up a major point:
home invasion style robberies in the US exist, but are relatively rare. However, the rate in the UK, where the home owner cannot have a gun, is MUCH higher. There are numerous stories of where a robber goes in with a bag and comes out in a bag.

I do own two guns, and while I have no delusions of them being used in self defense (long rifles+small house=not really useful), they have proven to be perfectly safe. Having never caused as much as a small injury. Many people in the neighborhood I grew up in had guns. They learned how to use them, and treat them properly. There never was a single death by firearms in the 20 years I lived there. Not on purpose, not accidentally, nothing. Guns aren't the problem.

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: hiromizu

That's correct. They'll probably hit unintended audiences instead. Hence, don't do the police work yourself.

lol, I don't think you fully understand what little space a bullet travels through in the massive volume of available space on a slight curve.

Aimed fire hits targets, un-aimed fire very rarely hits anything significant. This also happens to be why machine guns are no more deadly then a semi-automatic.

Common sense and yes, I agree with you...but what is the point? Arm civilians with semi-autos and force military level training so that they can become better protectors of their neighborhood?

 

[the unknown]

double post

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: the unknown
I dunno. I like to consider myself a realist on a lot of things. And if you take away guns, it will just be substituted with something else. But guns aren't cool. I think they're pretty hate-able. Think of all the people that have died in wars to guns. WWI, WW2... A machine designed to kill, so easily and effectively. It doesn't take much effort. That 8yo that killed his father was made only possible by a gun. He could have used no other object that I can think of to kill his father. Anything else the father could have stopped, or would be too difficult for the child to use.

People that own and use guns have two main defenses.

Originally posted by: ric1287
a gun laying on the street doesn't kill anyone.

A gun isn't innately dangerous. Well great, but that easily disproved. Just say that guns were on every street lying there. Would you feel safe? No, because people are idiots. And guns are dangerous in the hands of stupid people. The worst part is, a lot of stupid people don't know they're stupid. So saying guns should be in the hands of only smart people doesn't work when any generic idiot can walk off the street and buy one.

Hence the reason we have laws/permits and things of that sort preventing people from (legally) walking into walgreens for a gun.

And using your argument, a car is on innately dangerous, but they sure as hell let a lot of stupid people operate them and kill people. Same logic.

Laws and permits don't stop those idiots from ultimately getting the guns. It just takes them 3 days longer.

Your second point is clearly addressed if you just included the entire quote.

Originally posted by: irishScott
You know alcohol kills more people each year than guns right? God I hate alcohol now. :roll:

Add the numbers from all the world wars and tally that number again. Plus isn't a fair comparison. People don't use alcohol to kill other people. Or cars. Or heart disease. I'm sure if you compared what people use to kill one another, guns would be at the top. Unless bombs killed more people, but there are a hell of a lot more guns out there then bombs.

No, that doesn't address my point. Guns for war and CC guns are not the same. Not to mention, thats like saying "a tank is technically a vehichle and in war it killed a bunch of people, so add that to car deaths". Does not work.

A gun does not think, it does not seek out people to kill. Therefore you limit the people who can buy them. A car is the same fucking thing, if you took out all the people in the country that are too stupid to drive, how many less auto-deaths would there be?

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
There is 811,000 google hits for "attacked with a baseball bat", can anyone explain to me why baseball bats should not be outlawed, but guns should be?

After all, a baseball bat has no useful purpose outside of attacking and entertainment. Even a gun is more useful as a tool.

I am a gun owner myself and I can't even understand why people would make such stupid arguments. You can't kill 6 people from 30 feet with a baseball bat.

That only proves my point. Zing!

The vast majority of people couldn't hit, let alone kill, 6 moving people at a distance of 30 feet even with a gun.

ZV

That's correct. They'll probably hit unintended audiences instead. Hence, don't do the police work yourself.

*blows whistle* Illegal shifting of arguments. 15 yard penalty and loss of down.

- The initial argument was that guns allowed people with bad intent to "kill 6 people from 30 feet".
- I pointed out that this is unlikely given the (lack of) skill that most criminals have with their weapons.
- You then proceeded to shift the argument 180 degrees to a hypothetical situation where there are 6 attackers and the person with the firearm is innocent.

That's an entirely different situation and therefore it is irrational to expect my previous response to apply.

In the latter situation, assuming that there is no reliable backstop beyond the attackers and that the area is crowded, the lone defender should obviously not fire on the attackers. That's part of the 4 most basic rules of firearms use. Know your target and know what is beyond it. If you cannot take a shot without risking bystanders, you do not take a shot at all. No CCW holder would fire in the situation you describe.

ZV

Great. Fine. You seem like someone who has great judgment but I do not have the same level of confidence in most people. From the management perspective in a world where equality rules, the majority would benefit more otherwise.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: hiromizu
Great. Fine. You seem like someone who has great judgment but I do not have the same level of confidence in most people. From the management perspective in a world where equality rules, the majority would benefit more otherwise.

The statistics for CCW holders do not support your position. You are free to maintain it, but it is not statistically defensible. People who are legally licensed to carry concealed are significantly less likely to commit crimes (including murder) than the general population.

ZV

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hiromizu
Great. Fine. You seem like someone who has great judgment but I do not have the same level of confidence in most people. From the management perspective in a world where equality rules, the majority would benefit more otherwise.

The statistics for CCW holders do not support your position. You are free to maintain it, but it is not statistically defensible. People who are legally licensed to carry concealed are significantly less likely to commit crimes (including murder) than the general population.

ZV

And in at least two studies law enforcement specifically.