Yamato Posted May 27, 2014 #2526 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Guns save lawns post. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted May 27, 2014 #2527 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Sure and I agree with that. But the problem is that they are still using a gun, and mentally ill or not, it doesn't take the gun out of their hands, or out of the equation for that matter. It's not just the person, and it's not just the gun, but the fact is that we are here talking about how the mentally ill are usually using guns more often than not to inflict pain and casualties among people. why do we not blame cars and alcohol when fatal dui happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 27, 2014 #2528 Share Posted May 27, 2014 why do we not blame cars and alcohol when fatal dui happens? Because neither of those are classified as a weapon. Sure they can be used as one, but they aren't supposed to be used to shoot potentially lethal projectiles. That's my point, a gun is a weapon but a car and alcohol are not classified as such. I can see what you're getting at though, as I've heard this point before. You're trying to say it's all in the person in a way something is used, but how many mass car killings are there every year? Drive by's can be included if you want, as they include a gun into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted May 27, 2014 Author #2529 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Because neither of those are classified as a weapon. Sure they can be used as one, but they aren't supposed to be used to shoot potentially lethal projectiles. That's my point, a gun is a weapon but a car and alcohol are not classified as such. I can see what you're getting at though, as I've heard this point before. You're trying to say it's all in the person in a way something is used, but how many mass car killings are there every year? Drive by's can be included if you want, as they include a gun into the equation. Absolutely it's all about the person and their intent to harm. That punk from California that just went on a rampage and did a but of everything. 3 killed by gun, 3 by blade and I keep hearing he also ran someone over. He was out to do whatever he could by any means and would of done the same had he not had a gun. The fact that he did what he did proves that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 27, 2014 #2530 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Absolutely it's all about the person and their intent to harm. That punk from California that just went on a rampage and did a but of everything. 3 killed by gun, 3 by blade and I keep hearing he also ran someone over. He was out to do whatever he could by any means and would of done the same had he not had a gun. The fact that he did what he did proves that. It does have a lot to do with the person, but the example you've cited is only one of many. Many others have chosen to use nothing but a gun when it comes to their day of rampage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 28, 2014 #2531 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Because neither of those are classified as a weapon. Sure they can be used as one, but they aren't supposed to be used to shoot potentially lethal projectiles. That's my point, a gun is a weapon but a car and alcohol are not classified as such. I can see what you're getting at though, as I've heard this point before. You're trying to say it's all in the person in a way something is used, but how many mass car killings are there every year? Drive by's can be included if you want, as they include a gun into the equation. Is a carving knife a weapon? Is a walking stick a weapon? Is a grain reaping scythe a weapon? Is a grain flail a weapon? Is a pruning hook a weapon? Is a spear-gun a weapon? Is a baseball bat a weapon? Is a hunting rifle a weapon? Is an ax a weapon? Is a carpenters hammer/ax a weapon? Who determines what is a weapon or not? The government? People get hung up on what is labeled as a weapon, rather then what the weapon is used for. I wonder what the ratio would be of animals killed by a hunting rifle to people killed by a hunting rifle? If it is a big ratio, then does that make a rifle a hunting tool, or a weapon? Edited May 28, 2014 by DieChecker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted May 28, 2014 #2532 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Because neither of those are classified as a weapon. they are if you use them as one, try to run someone over, and do not be surprised you will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, 3000lb of metal doing 60mph is more of a weapon that a bullet. but the point is in dui no one blames cars or booze, all the blame is on the person, what is different about guns? look up numbers killed on the roads, compare it with numbers killed by guns. Edited May 28, 2014 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted May 28, 2014 Author #2533 Share Posted May 28, 2014 they are if you use them as one, try to run someone over, and do not be surprised you will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, 3000lb of metal doing 60mph is more of a weapon that a bullet. but the point is in dui no one blames cars or booze, all the blame is on the person, what is different about guns? look up numbers killed on the roads, compare it with numbers killed by guns. This part of the argument got mixed up. Not that I want to help the no-gun guys but it's not what is and isn't a weapon. The correct stance is that guns are designed to kill and everything else serves a different intended purpose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 28, 2014 #2534 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Being civilized won't save anyone, but I would rather live in such a place. You simply believe that guns and civilization cannot coexist? Perhaps if all Roman citizens had owned a spear... the collapse of Rome could have been put off another century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 28, 2014 #2535 Share Posted May 28, 2014 This part of the argument got mixed up. Not that I want to help the no-gun guys but it's not what is and isn't a weapon. The correct stance is that guns are designed to kill and everything else serves a different intended purpose. Thank you for that though, that's basically what I was trying to say. Guns only serve one purpose, and cannot be used for something else. Their designed to shoot bullets, and bullets are designed to harm, kill, or destroy something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 28, 2014 #2536 Share Posted May 28, 2014 You simply believe that guns and civilization cannot coexist? Perhaps if all Roman citizens had owned a spear... the collapse of Rome could have been put off another century? Sure they can, and they do in today's world, but if you look at history, even recent events, you will find that in times of turmoil the gun is the first thing to come out rather than some sort of a diplomatic solution. The crisis in Ukraine is a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 28, 2014 #2537 Share Posted May 28, 2014 they are if you use them as one, try to run someone over, and do not be surprised you will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, 3000lb of metal doing 60mph is more of a weapon that a bullet. but the point is in dui no one blames cars or booze, all the blame is on the person, what is different about guns? look up numbers killed on the roads, compare it with numbers killed by guns. I see your point, but the gun debate in this country generally doesn't being up car statistics as a reference. Not trying to be funny or sarcastic, but it just doesn't happen. The debate is about guns and their purpose, not cars and how some choose to drink and drive or do harmful things with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted May 28, 2014 Author #2538 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Thank you for that though, that's basically what I was trying to say. Guns only serve one purpose, and cannot be used for something else. Their designed to shoot bullets, and bullets are designed to harm, kill, or destroy something. You're welcome. I won't be throwing too many bones like that so chew slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 28, 2014 #2539 Share Posted May 28, 2014 You're welcome. I won't be throwing too many bones like that so chew slowly. Yeah, it may be a while! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 28, 2014 #2540 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Is a carving knife a weapon? Is a walking stick a weapon? Is a grain reaping scythe a weapon? Is a grain flail a weapon? Is a pruning hook a weapon? Is a spear-gun a weapon? Is a baseball bat a weapon? Is a hunting rifle a weapon? Is an ax a weapon? Is a carpenters hammer/ax a weapon? Who determines what is a weapon or not? The government? People get hung up on what is labeled as a weapon, rather then what the weapon is used for. I wonder what the ratio would be of animals killed by a hunting rifle to people killed by a hunting rifle? If it is a big ratio, then does that make a rifle a hunting tool, or a weapon? Ok, I'm going to propose a hypothetical here. There is only one rule, don't change the hypothetical, and just please answer the question honestly. Also don't add your own hypotheticals in here. I am willing to answer anyone's hypothetical honestly if you do the same for here. Let's assume nobody else is armed, as it's a no carry mall, and all inside are law abiding citizens. No security guards are present. Bill is upset with his life. One day he makes a plan to kill as many people as he can at a local crowded mall. Bill also knows that when he starts his rampage that people are going to run from him and disperse, as it's human nature. He knows with that in mind that he needs to do it as quickly as possible. He has these items in front of him to choose from to make this happen. A rock(s) A semi auto rifle A chain A screwdriver A carving knife A walking stick A grain reaping scythe A grain hook A shotgun A pruning hook A spear gun A baseball bat A hunting rifle An ax A carpenters hammer/ax A pistol My question is, which one is Bill most likely to pick to inflict the most deaths and or injuries? Also, please explain why you chose that item and what makes it more effective than the others in the list, and you don't have to name every single one, just why the one you chose is the most effective. Edited May 28, 2014 by andy4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted May 28, 2014 Author #2541 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I'd rather not get into the hypotheticals of committing mass murder but the obvious choice is a gun of your choosing in a mall full of unarmed people. The explanation is obvious. Now here's the alternative scenario. Bill wants to shoot up the mall but he's chickening out because he lives in 2nd Amendment, USA and nearly the whole city could be concealed carrying. The Bill's are few and far between in those parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 28, 2014 #2542 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I'd rather not get into the hypotheticals of committing mass murder but the obvious choice is a gun of your choosing in a mall full of unarmed people. The explanation is obvious. Now here's the alternative scenario. Bill wants to shoot up the mall but he's chickening out because he lives in 2nd Amendment, USA and nearly the whole city could be concealed carrying. The Bill's are few and far between in those parts. Well thank you for answering, I hope more will answer, it'll be interesting to see what they have to say. Yeah, the 2nd scenario is true, and I would definitely agree with you that it prevents more shootings, no doubt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted May 28, 2014 Author #2543 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Well thank you for answering, I hope more will answer, it'll be interesting to see what they have to say. Yeah, the 2nd scenario is true, and I would definitely agree with you that it prevents more shootings, no doubt. Now if we can forget the hypothetical that guns are going to be gone, as you wish, we can face the reality, which you yourself just confirmed, that the more gun friendly an area is the less chance that public menaces are going to strike. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 29, 2014 #2544 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Sure they can, and they do in today's world, but if you look at history, even recent events, you will find that in times of turmoil the gun is the first thing to come out rather than some sort of a diplomatic solution. The crisis in Ukraine is a good example. But that is simply not true, as I have already pointed out only one gun kills someone for every 10,000 that are in private US citizen hands. People are probably more quick to go online and write a email to their Senator then to bring out their gun. If what you say is true, then every time there is an auto accident and people have to talk about what happened, there is immediate drawing of guns. You don't believe that do you? The use of a gun is so rare that we are only 3 times as dangerous as Vietnam, which has crippling anti gun legislation. Ok, I'm going to propose a hypothetical here. There is only one rule, don't change the hypothetical, and just please answer the question honestly. Also don't add your own hypotheticals in here. I am willing to answer anyone's hypothetical honestly if you do the same for here. Let's assume nobody else is armed, as it's a no carry mall, and all inside are law abiding citizens. No security guards are present. Bill is upset with his life. One day he makes a plan to kill as many people as he can at a local crowded mall. Bill also knows that when he starts his rampage that people are going to run from him and disperse, as it's human nature. He knows with that in mind that he needs to do it as quickly as possible. He has these items in front of him to choose from to make this happen. A rock(s) A semi auto rifle A chain A screwdriver A carving knife A walking stick A grain reaping scythe A grain hook A shotgun A pruning hook A spear gun A baseball bat A hunting rifle An ax A carpenters hammer/ax A pistol My question is, which one is Bill most likely to pick to inflict the most deaths and or injuries? Also, please explain why you chose that item and what makes it more effective than the others in the list, and you don't have to name every single one, just why the one you chose is the most effective. I'd use a pistol, obviously. So, answer this... What would be the best thing to stop me from killing people at the mall? (Notice I did not say shooting people, because my goal is to kill people, not just shoot them.) - Ban guns and go house to house to find them all. - Allow 1/10th of the population to carry concealed weapons. - Demand everyone takes gun education classes. - Something else.... If you ban guns, then I'm just going to go for the next most dangerous weapon/tool. If you have an armed and trained populous, Mr Diechecker probably will not even go to the mall to shoot it out, because he'll be shot himself as soon as he fires his first shot. Using a pistol to kill unarmed mall people = 25 dead. Using a knife to kill unarmed mall people = 8 dead. Using a pistol to kill armed mall people = 2 dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 29, 2014 #2545 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Now if we can forget the hypothetical that guns are going to be gone, as you wish, we can face the reality, which you yourself just confirmed, that the more gun friendly an area is the less chance that public menaces are going to strike. Right, but I was just confirming in that scenario that a gun would always be first choice in a mass killing, even the majority of suicides for that matter. But, if the criminal didn't have a gun to begin with, there would no doubt be more bloodshed, I guess in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 29, 2014 #2546 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Right, but I was just confirming in that scenario that a gun would always be first choice in a mass killing, even the majority of suicides for that matter. But, if the criminal didn't have a gun to begin with, there would no doubt be more bloodshed, I guess in my opinion. That is the same for any weapon. And martial arts also. A gun makes it easier, but the maniac still would go out and try to kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 31, 2014 #2547 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I think a fair summary would be: Guns save lives - if everyone has one. Guns take a lot more lives - if they're prohibited and thus only the criminals in society have them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted May 31, 2014 #2548 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I think a fair summary would be: Guns save lives - if everyone has one. Guns take a lot more lives - if they're prohibited and thus only the criminals in society have them. They have them anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 1, 2014 #2549 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Don't forget... If the people don't have guns, they do what the Military tells them to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickian Posted June 1, 2014 #2550 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Don't forget... If the people don't have guns, they do what the Military tells them to do. Well, in theory the military is not allowed to be deployed on native soil. The national guard/police is all the citizens would have to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.0332af9e78f2251ae24e5aa89207b58c.png){kind=tracking}
Recommended Posts