Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Guns save lives thread


F3SS
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Old Guard Right (White might makes right) vs. the Entitlement-Holding Left (We'll force the issue with govt force control and someone else's money!)

Some people call Left vs. Right a false paradigm. I can understand their sentiment. But narrower issues like the OP (gun rights) make people falsely believe there's a real difference between the two, but from what I've observed the difference between left and right is little more than a choice between two different flavors of greed.

And the OP title is dead wrong. Guns save no lives. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Goose egg. Donut hole. Sometimes, people save lives with and without guns. Sometimes, people take lives with and without guns. The gun is just a g'damned chuck of metal. It's people that are the problem.

Edited by Yamato
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the OP title is dead wrong. Guns save no lives. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Goose egg. Donut hole. Sometimes, people save lives with and without guns. Sometimes, people take lives with and without guns. The gun is just a g'damned chuck of metal. It's people that are the problem.

Exactly. The door swings both ways. If a gun isn't to blame for a murder, then a gun can't be credited for saving a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of the op wasn't to be an absolute statement. It was to bring to light what Hida said. The door swings both ways. At the time I created this over a year ago nearly every thread was a one way street. The same arguments as here took place but the premise of every single thread was that guns are bad, mmmkay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the world would be like if the US ran its foreign policy on nuclear weapons the way people insist we treat guns...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes because nuclear weapons- that can obliterate thousands of square miles in an instant and cause collateral damage that extends even further and render entire landscapes inhospitable to life and may even have global consequences- is really a logically comparable to guns and worth while thought to ponder. The two matters are so incredibly far apart that smart ass replies are all that comment deserves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes because nuclear weapons- that can obliterate thousands of square miles in an instant and cause collateral damage that extends even further and render entire landscapes inhospitable to life and may even have global consequences- is really a logically comparable to guns and worth while thought to ponder. The two matters are so incredibly far apart that smart ass replies are all that comment deserves.

The premise sure is the same, isn't it? Having a a powerful weapon to defend yourself (as a nation) against another one? After all, conventional weapons in a nuclear war are much like a knife in a gun fight, no? Do you disagree?

Whats stopping the "bad guys" with nukes from nuking a non-nuke nation? It'd be definitely safer for all nations to have nukes, since that'll deter others from using them, right?

Or are you saying that the ease with which a weapon can kill many people plays a very real factor in determining whether their possession should be regulated/prohibited or not?

And if the two subjects are so drastically different, you shouldn't need to resort to "smart ass replies".

Edited by Stellar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common arguments for guns/against gun control:

1. The bad guys will always "find a way" to get a gun if they really want to.

2. You need to be able to defend yourself against a bad guy that attacks you, whether the bad guy uses a gun or not. Guns are the great "equalizer"

3. By regulating/controlling guns, you're punishing people who have done nothing wrong.

Now, applied to nukes:

1. The bad guys will always "find a way" to get a nuke if they really want to.

2. A nation needs to be able to defend itself against a bad nation that attacks them, whether the bad nation uses a nuke or not. Nukes are the great "equalizer"

3. By regulating/controlling nukes, you're punishing the nations who have done nothing wrong.

Oh, and then there's the other approach:

People have a right to self defence, thus have a right to bear arms. That argument is commonly used as well, and people are also very keen to point out that those right are given to them by "god" or birth, not the constitution. Well then, a logical extension of the right for people to self defence is the right of nations to self defence, thus they must have a right to have nukes.

I don't see how the issues are dissimilar really... the only difference is the scale on which it is applied.

Can you explain to me whats so different between the two types of weapons?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a better comparison by far, than comparing cars to guns. Ridiculous and it shows there is a desperate attempt to compare guns to something, anything that kills.

You pro gunners should just bring up bee deaths and try to get that into your gun argument. Makes the same amount of logical sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thug Playing The Knockout Game Gets Shot Twice By Victim

http://www.thepcmdga...wice-by-victim/

Obviously if we take away everyone's guns, no one would be playing the knockout game. NOT!!!

This idiot (The knockout attacker) is just another example of the stupid people causing problems for the other 99.9% of us.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common arguments for guns/against gun control:

1. The bad guys will always "find a way" to get a gun if they really want to.

2. You need to be able to defend yourself against a bad guy that attacks you, whether the bad guy uses a gun or not. Guns are the great "equalizer"

3. By regulating/controlling guns, you're punishing people who have done nothing wrong.

Now, applied to nukes:

1. The bad guys will always "find a way" to get a nuke if they really want to.

2. A nation needs to be able to defend itself against a bad nation that attacks them, whether the bad nation uses a nuke or not. Nukes are the great "equalizer"

3. By regulating/controlling nukes, you're punishing the nations who have done nothing wrong.

Oh, and then there's the other approach:

People have a right to self defence, thus have a right to bear arms. That argument is commonly used as well, and people are also very keen to point out that those right are given to them by "god" or birth, not the constitution. Well then, a logical extension of the right for people to self defence is the right of nations to self defence, thus they must have a right to have nukes.

I don't see how the issues are dissimilar really... the only difference is the scale on which it is applied.

Can you explain to me whats so different between the two types of weapons?

"1. The bad guys will always "find a way" to get a nuke if they really want to."

I don't believe that to be actually true, otherwise Iran and Iraq would have nuclear weapons by now.

One problem is that nukes take hours to deploy, such that the opposing side has time to prime their own weapons and launch if needed well before the enemy nukes show up. This is called Mutually Assured Destruction, which is not the case with guns. A guy can pull up in a car and shoot someone dead, before they even know they are there. The exception being where the attacker has to enter a residence or business. In such a case the target usually ends up having time to arm themselves and issue a challenge, thereby scaring the attacker away, or the defender having a tactical advantage of terrain, usually will end up in control of the situation.

Also, judging off the radio show I listen to, which goes over the Chicago shooting deaths and injuries from guns over the weekend each week, about 3 out of 4 people shot are treated and live. How many would survive a nuclear strike? 3 out of 4?

Apples and Oranges. Like trying to directly compare guns to flamethrowers, or tanks. There is no private ownership of either without government approval.

Cars and guns are comparable, because they have similar ownership rates and similar rates of injuring and killing people. A careless person with a gun or a careless person with a car are both very dangerous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1. The bad guys will always "find a way" to get a nuke if they really want to."

I don't believe that to be actually true, otherwise Iran and Iraq would have nuclear weapons by now.

One problem is that nukes take hours to deploy, such that the opposing side has time to prime their own weapons and launch if needed well before the enemy nukes show up. This is called Mutually Assured Destruction, which is not the case with guns. A guy can pull up in a car and shoot someone dead, before they even know they are there. The exception being where the attacker has to enter a residence or business. In such a case the target usually ends up having time to arm themselves and issue a challenge, thereby scaring the attacker away, or the defender having a tactical advantage of terrain, usually will end up in control of the situation.

Also, judging off the radio show I listen to, which goes over the Chicago shooting deaths and injuries from guns over the weekend each week, about 3 out of 4 people shot are treated and live. How many would survive a nuclear strike? 3 out of 4?

Apples and Oranges. Like trying to directly compare guns to flamethrowers, or tanks. There is no private ownership of either without government approval.

Cars and guns are comparable, because they have similar ownership rates and similar rates of injuring and killing people. A careless person with a gun or a careless person with a car are both very dangerous.

Being careless with a car is much more likely to end up killing someone than being careless with a gun.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that to be actually true, otherwise Iran and Iraq would have nuclear weapons by now

North Korea got them. Iran is getting close. They're certainly not things that one gets overnight.

​Having said that, Iran hasn't yet got them, and it was long and hard for NK to get them, and many others have probably considered it considered it too much trouble to be worth it. Could that be because nukes and nuclear weapons technology is very strictly controlled?

One problem is that nukes take hours to deploy, such that the opposing side has time to prime their own weapons and launch if needed well before the enemy nukes show up. This is called Mutually Assured Destruction, which is not the case with guns. A guy can pull up in a car and shoot someone dead, before they even know they are there. The exception being where the attacker has to enter a residence or business. In such a case the target usually ends up having time to arm themselves and issue a challenge, thereby scaring the attacker away, or the defender having a tactical advantage of terrain, usually will end up in control of the situation.

​I don't see how that makes guns and nukes different, nor do I see how its correct. There are ways of making nukes (nuclear silos) such that you do not need to "deploy" them... only launch them.

The one argument for guns has been that criminals with guns won't go attacking people if they think the people have guns, for fear of getting shot... sounds an awful lot like one nuclear country not attacking another nuclear country for fear of getting nuked in return.

Also, judging off the radio show I listen to, which goes over the Chicago shooting deaths and injuries from guns over the weekend each week, about 3 out of 4 people shot are treated and live. How many would survive a nuclear strike? 3 out of 4

​So whats your point? The scope is different. No one is saying that a nuclear weapon doesn't kill any more than a gun. The scope of the example and the scale of the weapon may be greater, but the principles remain. Explain to me how those arguments I presented don't apply to nuclear weapons.

Cars and guns are comparable, because they have similar ownership rates and similar rates of injuring and killing people. A careless person with a gun or a careless person with a car are both very dangerous.

Really? Comparing one weapon to another is "apples and oranges", but comparing a weapon to a vehicle is acceptable?

So, is the issue that the capacity of killing make the premise of nuclear armament different than the premise of owning guns? In other words, because its so much easier to kill many people with a nuke, that makes it unacceptable to allow every nation to own?

Also, a careless leader with a nuclear weapon can be very dangerous as well.

Edited by Stellar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Korea got them. Iran is getting close. They're certainly not things that one gets overnight.

​Having said that, Iran hasn't yet got them, and it was long and hard for NK to get them, and many others have probably considered it considered it too much trouble to be worth it. Could that be because nukes and nuclear weapons technology is very strictly controlled?

Part is that because they are very expensive to build and maintain. If a gun took 50 dollars a month to keep in running order, a lot less people would own one.

Guns are relatively well regulated. I'd not argue against somewhat more strict regulations.

​I don't see how that makes guns and nukes different, nor do I see how its correct. There are ways of making nukes (nuclear silos) such that you do not need to "deploy" them... only launch them.

You don't see how having minutes or hours of reaction time is different then fractions of a second? If everyone had to aim at their gun at their target for 5 minutes, and if both people inevitably were killed. Then you would have a argument.

The one argument for guns has been that criminals with guns won't go attacking people if they think the people have guns, for fear of getting shot... sounds an awful lot like one nuclear country not attacking another nuclear country for fear of getting nuked in return.

I say, SO?

It is called Deterrence, and it works with both. It would work with a spear, or a sword also. It is the threat of violence to deter violence. Comparable technology will deter an invader from invading. It will not Prevent invasion, but will deter them so they have to deal with the enemy's weapons.

​So whats your point? The scope is different. No one is saying that a nuclear weapon doesn't kill any more than a gun. The scope of the example and the scale of the weapon may be greater, but the principles remain. Explain to me how those arguments I presented don't apply to nuclear weapons.

Many things can be called a weapon. Nuclear weapons are part of that description, I suppose. But, nukes are what are known as Weapons of Mass Destruction, and are OUTLAWED (generally) by the world's governments. Now the WORLD hasn't seen it necessary to outlaw guns, so I think nukes probably fit into another category of weapon then a handgun does. So, your argument that if nukes and guns deter, then all nations should have nukes, is logically true, but considering that nukes belong to another category of weapons, the comparison is not really fair.

Perhaps a better analogy would be that many nations of the world are like Children. They shouldn't be allowed to own a gun (or nuke) till they mature. And it is the Rest of the World's nations who would/should decide what nations are mature.

Really? Comparing one weapon to another is "apples and oranges", but comparing a weapon to a vehicle is acceptable?

That is what I said isn't it?

So, is the issue that the capacity of killing make the premise of nuclear armament different than the premise of owning guns? In other words, because its so much easier to kill many people with a nuke, that makes it unacceptable to allow every nation to own?

Hey, start a Poll thread about Nuclear Disarmament. I'll vote that the whole world disarms their nukes.

But, I still believe we are all allowed to own personal firearms.

Also, a careless leader with a nuclear weapon can be very dangerous as well.

It seems to me that it was a certain nation (Iraq) that wouldn't cooperate with inspectors which ended up creating quite a mess. People don't want nuclear proliferation. And are willing to prevent homicidal dictators from getting them.

Are you Pro or Con with Iran getting nukes?

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't see how having minutes or hours of reaction time is different then fractions of a second? If everyone had to aim at their gun at their target for 5 minutes, and if both people inevitably were killed. Then you would have a argument.

I do see it as different. I don't see how it changes the premise of the argument though. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say the argument of self defines thus applies *better* to nukes than to guns in that case, since you're less likely to draw and successfully kill a person in that fraction of a second that you have with guns.

It is called Deterrence, and it works with both. It would work with a spear, or a sword also. It is the threat of violence to deter violence. Comparable technology will deter an invader from invading. It will not Prevent invasion, but will deter them so they have to deal with the enemy's weapons.

Precisely. So that argument applies to both guns and nukes.

But, nukes are what are known as Weapons of Mass Destruction, and are OUTLAWED (generally) by the world's governments. Now the WORLD hasn't seen it necessary to outlaw guns, so I think nukes probably fit into another category of weapon then a handgun does. So, your argument that if nukes and guns deter, then all nations should have nukes, is logically true, but considering that nukes belong to another category of weapons, the comparison is not really fair.

I do understand they're outlawed. I'm simply stating that the arguments proposed to support the right of people to own guns can easily be applied to the "right" of nations to own nuclear weapons. People disagree, and I disagree with that disagreement!

Why do I bring it up? Because I feel like the reason people disagree with nuclear proliferation is, for the most part, the same reason people argue for certain gun control, so its another approach to trying to get my gun control point across and have it hopefully be understood.

Perhaps a better analogy would be that many nations of the world are like Children. They shouldn't be allowed to own a gun (or nuke) till they mature. And it is the Rest of the World's nations who would/should decide what nations are mature.

But nations aren't children. The analogy would more appropriately be that many nations of the world aren't to be trusted with nuclear weapons... You know, those who have a somewhat unstable history. When that logic is applied to people (unstable people), the retort is often that even those people are still innocent and have a right to defend themselves/own a gun --- and who is the government to decide what people are stable or unstable? Which then, if applied to nations on a world scale, would mean that no nation should have a right to dictate to another nation what weapons they can or can not have. So where lies the difference? Why is self defence a right that supports owning a gun, but not a right that supports owning a nuke? Is it just because a nuke is more destructive?

That is what I said isn't it?

Sure is. And thats what I disagree with.

Hey, start a Poll thread about Nuclear Disarmament. I'll vote that the whole world disarms their nukes.

But, I still believe we are all allowed to own personal firearms.

I have no doubt that many people feel the exact same way. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm merely stating that if nuclear weapons were treated the same was as the anti-guncontrol people want to treat guns, the entire world would be nuclear armed.

The fact that most arguments against gun-control can easily be applied against nuclear-non-proliferation, yet aren't, seems to indicate that there's more to the issue than the argument implies, invalidating the argument in the first place!

It seems to me that it was a certain nation (Iraq) that wouldn't cooperate with inspectors which ended up creating quite a mess. People don't want nuclear proliferation. And are willing to prevent homicidal dictators from getting them.

Are you Pro or Con with Iran getting nukes?

I do not think any other countries should get nukes. The less control there is over nukes, the more likely there is for something catastrophic to happen. Hence why I believe in gun control..

Buuut, if we are to apply the argument that people have a right to defend themselves and deter criminals, Iran surely has a right to do so as well, no?

Or, once again, the "right" to defend yourself is not an absolute "right", but rather you have the right to defend yourself with the level of weapon that society determines is acceptable.

This is getting a bit extensive with the quotes. I'm going to stop quote-bombing you now. I'll just reply to your post as a whole next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of the op wasn't to be an absolute statement. It was to bring to light what Hida said. The door swings both ways. At the time I created this over a year ago nearly every thread was a one way street. The same arguments as here took place but the premise of every single thread was that guns are bad, mmmkay.

You're right, bro. I think discussing this topic has a lot of value, attacking the subject line wasn't saying much of me. It was more me getting myself back on topic here and starting out by addressing the subject line. It was a rehash of page #1 of this thread incidentally. Going back to the beginning might be a better starting point for discussion. Your subject line is timeless, I see. After 175 pages it's as relevant today as it ever was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see it as different. I don't see how it changes the premise of the argument though. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say the argument of self defines thus applies *better* to nukes than to guns in that case, since you're less likely to draw and successfully kill a person in that fraction of a second that you have with guns.

Do you believe that all people should then have the right to own a gun? A repeat rapist? Mass murders? Children? The mentally unstable?

The same argument here. Some nations have shown they can't be trusted with nukes. So they don't get them.

If a child built a gun, it would need to be taken away. If a felon gets a gun, it needs to be taken away.

There are exceptions to the rule.

Precisely. So that argument applies to both guns and nukes.

Again reference exceptions to the rule. The fact that most have to be excepted is not the point.

I do understand they're outlawed. I'm simply stating that the arguments proposed to support the right of people to own guns can easily be applied to the "right" of nations to own nuclear weapons. People disagree, and I disagree with that disagreement!

Why do I bring it up? Because I feel like the reason people disagree with nuclear proliferation is, for the most part, the same reason people argue for certain gun control, so its another approach to trying to get my gun control point across and have it hopefully be understood.

I can recognize that argument though I don't agree with it.

So what do you say about the people who are good with everyone having nukes if they can keep their personal guns?

But nations aren't children.

Some of them are....

The analogy would more appropriately be that many nations of the world aren't to be trusted with nuclear weapons... You know, those who have a somewhat unstable history. When that logic is applied to people (unstable people), the retort is often that even those people are still innocent and have a right to defend themselves/own a gun --- and who is the government to decide what people are stable or unstable? Which then, if applied to nations on a world scale, would mean that no nation should have a right to dictate to another nation what weapons they can or can not have. So where lies the difference? Why is self defence a right that supports owning a gun, but not a right that supports owning a nuke? Is it just because a nuke is more destructive?

My opinion would be that the mentally unstable should be protected by restricting their gun ownership more then others. The government clearly has the right to edit the rights of the people. Just as you can't say many things without consequences.

A gun is more dangerous then a knife, which is more dangerous then a stick, which is more dangerous then a fist. Yes, a nuke is more dangerous, more deadly per individual attacked, then a gun. Would you subscribe that all these weapons are equal and should be treated the same?

I have no doubt that many people feel the exact same way. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm merely stating that if nuclear weapons were treated the same was as the anti-guncontrol people want to treat guns, the entire world would be nuclear armed.

The fact that most arguments against gun-control can easily be applied against nuclear-non-proliferation, yet aren't, seems to indicate that there's more to the issue than the argument implies, invalidating the argument in the first place!

Perhaps.....

I do not think any other countries should get nukes. The less control there is over nukes, the more likely there is for something catastrophic to happen. Hence why I believe in gun control..

Buuut, if we are to apply the argument that people have a right to defend themselves and deter criminals, Iran surely has a right to do so as well, no?

Or, once again, the "right" to defend yourself is not an absolute "right", but rather you have the right to defend yourself with the level of weapon that society determines is acceptable.

This is getting a bit extensive with the quotes. I'm going to stop quote-bombing you now. I'll just reply to your post as a whole next time.

Ah,.......I like quote bombing.......

My conclusion would be that nukes, like a stick, is in a different category then a gun and has different level of legality. The two are so very different that they should not be compared.

And that many nations are like children, or are unstable, and thus should be excepted from any rule of a right to defense using nukes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when is this kid gonna get it, we do not give a **** about nukes, we do not need them, we want to keep our firearms, that is all. no they are not the same and only idiot can draw paralell

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good.

A few more deaths like that and the novelty will wear off. A small blood price cures a much larger one. It gives me no pleasure to see this, but I can still acknowledge how to put a stop to 'Knockout'.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/size]

...

DieChecker, no one is saying that a childrapist or murderer should get weapons. The problem, though, is I've seen to types of responses from anti-gun-controlers regarding this.

1. Ive heard people claim that once a murderer gets out of prison, they have "payed their dues" and thus should be allowed to have a gun.

2. When pro-gun-controlers talk about taking measures to prevent people like murderers from getting guns, anti-gun-controllers say that it is "punishing" the innocent.

When it comes to nukes, no one is allowed to develop them. Thats the idea of the nuclear-non-proliferation treaty... So does that not "punish" those innocent nations? Is self-defence a right, but only up to firearms and conventional weapons?

What do I say about people who are good with everyone having nukes? I'd say they're wrong. I'm merely comparing the argument we all understand (that for nuclear non-proliferation) to that for guns. It seems that, according to the arguments I've heard, whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.

And you hit it right on the head when you said that guns are more dangerous than knives, and nukes are more dangerous than guns. That is absolutely so. And no, I do not subscribe to them all being treated equally. I firmly believe that its all a matter of where we draw acceptable risk. People die in car accidents. Thats a risk I'm willing to accept, based on the benefits I get from the existence of cars. What people disagree on is where that balance lies with regards to firearms. Having said that, people argue that everyone having one is "safer" because it becomes a deterrent. Why does that logic not apply to nukes? If everyone had a nuke, there'd be no wars, right?

My conclusion would be that nukes, like a stick, is in a different category then a gun and has different level of legality. The two are so very different that they should not be compared.

And that many nations are like children, or are unstable, and thus should be excepted from any rule of a right to defense using nukes.

Yet, many people are like children, or are unstable, yet people maintain that they should be allowed to have guns, because any effort to prevent them from getting guns also "punishes the innocent".

Nukes are quite different than a stick, and should be treated differently than sticks and guns. I don't disagree with you on that. I'm merely saying that it seems that the arguments put fourth to support loose gun control can be applied to support nuclear proliferation. Those arguments sound quite absurd to me when people use them to oppose gun-control, just as those arguments sound absurd to the anti-gun-control crowd when I apply them to nuclear proliferation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He Pointed a Gun at His Would-Be Victim and Said, 'I Bet You Don't Have One of These.' He Lost That Bet Badly.

A suspected robber in Jackson, Mississippi, had to be hospitalized after his would-be victim called his bluff in a big way.

More... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/20/he-pointed-a-gun-at-his-would-be-victim-and-said-i-bet-you-dont-have-one-of-these-he-lost-that-bet-badly/

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.