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 -
F3SS

Guns save lives thread

2,946 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Frank Merton

We all die sooner or later, so if cancer and heart disease don't kill me, something else will. Does that mean I shouldn't try to avoid cancer and heart disease?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odds

I just don't understand your argument. There is at least a hundred things i could use to kill someone in my room alone, if i wanted to. But guns are much more efficient, deadly, and lets face it, more likely to strike fear or do harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odds

Sorry, i hit post early.

Sure, you can't regulate everything, but why not the most dangerous?

Edited by Odds
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ciriuslea

I just don't understand your argument. There is at least a hundred things i could use to kill someone in my room alone, if i wanted to. But guns are much more efficient, deadly, and lets face it, more likely to strike fear or do harm.

Then what's the big deal about gun control, you have hundreds of weapons you could use, I don't think efficiency is an issue when it comes to wanting to kill someone, if you haven't got a gun your'll grab whatever will do the job, as proved by the spike in knife murders after the gun control was introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odds

I'm pretty sure efficiency would actually be the main factor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

a better version ... than the

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

A murder or a suicide or an accident can kill someone simply because a gun was available that would not have happened otherwise. I think this is patently obvious.

There is a name for the fallacy that because other things that we allow can also be used to kill, guns must be allowed, but can't people see the fallacy on their own without studying logic? Have we no sense at all?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Most people claim that they own guns because of their right to defend against a despotic government - well it ain't worked - you have slid into a despotic government without even noticing and your guns did nothing to stop it.

This second amendment logic has meant that people have become distrustful and complacent about their government and not taken an active roll in stopping the slide to despotism.

Now that it has happened, you will not be safe no matter how many semi-automatic weapons you have, since you have allowed your Government to arm itself with weapons which make plain and simple guns all but worthless.

Meanwhile thousands die because you believe that guns can protect you - wrong civil society is the only thing that can protect you and you seem to have blew that.

America looks more like a war zone by the day.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

I don't know that one can start a thread and control it by not permitting posts of people who want to provide evidence that supports the other side. If you want to show that guns save lives, then others posting that gun's don't save lives is fair. If you want to show that monkeys have a secret conspiracy to overthrow mankind, then others posting evidence to the contrary would be perfectly fair.

It's called derailing and is generally frowned upon.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

482055_397201087012636_1192910843_n.jpg

yeah no kidding ... you don't say ... oh excuse me ...

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

It's called derailing and is generally frowned upon.

Giving contra arguments is not derailing.

Guns don't save lives; people do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Giving contra arguments is not derailing.

There is also something called common courtesy which isn't so common any more. How many threads do people need to voice their opinion about our gun laws? There was a specific purpose for this thread and people just couldn't let it be.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I think the real offense being committed here is not derailing but an attempt to control what people post on a thread.

Posting irrelevant stuff is frowned upon, but not engaging the topic of the thread from a different viewpoint.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

There is also something called common courtesy which isn't so common any more. How many threads do people need to voice their opinion about our gun laws? There was a specific purpose for this thread and people just couldn't let it be.

thank you ....

313908_392931807439564_1068376611_n.jpg

:tu:

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

There is also something called common courtesy which isn't so common any more. How many threads do people need to voice their opinion about our gun laws? There was a specific purpose for this thread and people just couldn't let it be.

Well, of course they can't. If I would open up a thread called "Guns Kill", and only post articles about all kinds of gun deaths, would that have been let be? Of course not, since posting in only one direction makes no sense whatsoever on a board likes this. In fact, let me put it this way: It's propaganda and censorship.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

It takes two to tango. You can't have a thread, and expect everyone to agree.

There wasn't supposed to be any tango and it wasn't a discussion thread. It had a plain and simple purpose.

Here, I'd like to start a thread where stories of guns saving lives and properties can be posted

Thats all it was supposed to be. And the stories were posted. There were many. Did you read any? How about the one were some guy went into the music store owned by two elderly people and started clubbing the old lady to death and the husband came out with a gun and shot the bastrd because he's an 80 year old man who couldn't fight the 35 year old man beating his wife with a club. The couple survived. She'd have been dead if they waited for the cops to arrive. Did a gun not save lives right there? Yea but but but but but... Maybe if it were your grandparents you'd appreciate that they had a right to carry a piece. What's that? But if you ban guns bad guys won't have them anymore? So what. This prick went to his car to grab a club to beat an old lady to death. How would you like someone to defend themselves in such a situation? You guys ruined a good thread and made it just another lets trash America gun thread.

RIP guns save lives thread. It's over.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Well, of course they can't. If I would open up a thread called "Guns Kill", and only post articles about all kinds of gun deaths, would that have been let be? Of course not, since posting in only one direction makes no sense whatsoever on a board likes this. In fact, let me put it this way: It's propaganda and censorship.

I suppose you think the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board is censorship too. It was started for the people who would like to discuss religion without it constantly being attacked like what happens in the Spirituality vs Scepticism. board.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

I don't know that one can start a thread and control it by not permitting posts of people who want to provide evidence that supports the other side. If you want to show that guns save lives, then others posting that gun's don't save lives is fair. If you want to show that monkeys have a secret conspiracy to overthrow mankind, then others posting evidence to the contrary would be perfectly fair.

Even though I show agreement to the OP ( it was a good story ) and I am in favour of not stripping away their rights to bare arms.( I noted this clearly ) ... I have to look at this for a complete outsider view, meaning to look at BOTH ends of the barrel ( yea pun intended ) ... I therefore completely see your point, and you are correct it would be fair to allow both sides, instead of a one sided standpoint..

Anyone posting on a forum knows full well that if we start a thread that says - IE - Not all dogs bite. . We are bound to get people with other opinions that say, "I know many that will bite your ass off and then some." These opinions are hard to avoid...YES the topic is about dogs who don't bite, but my point and what I understand from your post Frank is, regardless of the topic, we are ( and always will ) see opposite opinions ...It's rare to see all going just one way.. On ANY forum..So anyone who posts already knows it, and most likely have done the same themselves from time to time...

With guns saving or killing, it is very hard to avoid.. If the topic was about - Guns that kill in the wrong hands.. You WILL see opinions from those going on about - "What about the guns in the right hands that save"? ( which is true ) Thing is, you are a cert to see both opinions

I see this sort of thing on the spirituality boards non stop..And on so many other boards.. Opposite opinions will never go away, even if we don't like them

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

I never understood the purpose of this thread anyway. It was one sided, boring, and basically just a "fanboy" thread. Fanboys of a certain opinion, in this case.

I have always stayed absent from this one, and I am sure most of you know why: My different (often called opposing) views. I didn't want to cause any conflict, and I certainly didn't want to create a "Guns Kill/Are Dangerous/Guns Whatever" thread, so I just let you have your "sanctuary".

I suppose you think the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board is censorship too. It was started for the people who would like to discuss religion without it constantly being attacked like what happens in the Spirituality vs Scepticism. board.

And that doesn't work out either. Let me start a thread on the positives of Sharia law. For how long will it be left alone?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

And that doesn't work out either. Let me start a thread on the positives of Sharia law. For how long will it be left alone?

Even though it should be left alone ( and I think that was the point Michelle was making..) fact is, it wont last a crack before others come in with "Positives of Sharia law ..you effing kidding me??"... and so on..It's a given, no way to avoid it.. Again we all have done it from time to time.. It's easy done.

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

discussions should be a good thing unless it is a bad discussion about an only thing ...

379578_10152902754760475_1507848045_n.jpg

let's invite Leo to the party ....

:yes:

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I can imagine my starting a "Buddhism, why you should be a Buddhist" thread. LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

And that doesn't work out either. Let me start a thread on the positives of Sharia law. For how long will it be left alone?

If you put it in the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board it will be monitored by the MODS and all inappropriate off topic posts will be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

If you put it in the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board it will be monitored by the MODS and all inappropriate off topic posts will be removed.

Alright, but that is not the case here. one cannot simply force their own rules on a thread and announce themself a moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Alright, but that is not the case here. one cannot simply force their own rules on a thread and announce themself a moderator.

All anyone has done is make requests for people to stay on topic.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.