locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1716743:date=Jul 10 2009, 12:38 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 10 2009, 12:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1716741:date=Jul 10 2009, 12:11 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jul 10 2009, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> This is something that most pro-gun (just to clarify, I don't particularly care one way or the other) folk seem to claim; "guns are safe if you know how to use them" and/or "I've never had an incident and I can't imagine that I would."
What these claims seem to be forgetting is that people other than you can and do have access to guns. People who *aren't* as gun safety conscious as you are. People who *will* cause an incident that is not a matter of self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Honestly, you can take any potentially dangerous tool and replace it with the word "gun" in the above bolded sentences and it would make sense. Watch:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>This is something that most chefs (just to clarify, I don't particularly care one way or the other) folk seem to claim; "knives are safe if you know how to use them" and/or "I've never had an incident and I can't imagine that I would."
What these claims seem to be forgetting is that people other than you can and do have access to knives. People who *aren't* as knife safety conscious as you are. People who *will* cause a violent incident that has nothing to do with cooking.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See? You didn't really make any point. And you can't. Because a gun is no different than a knife or a baseball bat, or whatever else people claim is violent. The point is that a gun is merely a tool that is used. Of course banning a potentially violent item will reduce it's usage in violent crimes. It would be like if a nation banned rope then bragged about how one is hanging themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Honestly, you <b>can't</b> take any potentially dangerous tool and replace it with the word "gun" in the above bolded sentences and have it make sense. Watch: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is something that most nuclear warhead (just to clarify, I don't particularly care one way or the other) folk seem to claim; "nuclear warheads are safe if you know how to use them" and/or "I've never had an incident and I can't imagine that I would."
What these claims seem to be forgetting is that people other than you can and do have access to nuclear warheads. People who *aren't* as nuclear warhead safety conscious as you are. People who *will* cause a violent incident that is not a matter of self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See? You didn't really make any point. And you can't. Because a gun is different from a knife, or a baseball bat, or a nuclear warhead. The point is that a gun is not a tool. It is a weapon that has one use; it shoots to kill. Of course banning a weapon will reduce it's usage in violent crimes. It would be nothing like a nation banning rope: rope has many non-violent uses, rope can't kill people from a distance with the pull of a trigger by itself, rope as a weapon isn't efficient enough for going on a killing spree.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->he point is that a gun is not a tool. It is a weapon that has one use; it shoots to kill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The purpose of a gun is to shoot. Some people shoot in competitions at the Olympic games and others shoot to kill people. Some people use a knife to cut food, others use it to cut people.
<!--quoteo(post=1716747:date=Jul 10 2009, 01:24 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jul 10 2009, 01:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716747"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->rope can't kill people from a distance with the pull of a trigger by itself<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Triggers can pull themselves? I always thought it was a person killing another person, I didn't realize the gun could operate itself.
Usually internet arguments do little to change someone's mind, but i'm convinced, guns should be banned.
Let's not get all feisty and make Scythe lock the thread. :P
But I would disagree that certain firearms are not tools. Any firearm meant for hunting is a tool like a knife is a tool. In fact, you'd use the knife to clean the animal you shot. But, like the sword had no real purpose outside of killing other human beings, handguns don't have any other purpose outside of killing human beings.
Coincidentally, any hunting shotgun is the most effective home defense weapon, combining maximum lethality and minimum penetration. Plus anyone not high or there with intent to murder you will most likely run at the sound of the shotgun's pump action.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1716766:date=Jul 10 2009, 03:38 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 10 2009, 03:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716766"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Triggers can pull themselves? I always thought it was a person killing another person, I didn't realize the gun could operate itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry the sentence was so ambiguous to the point of incoherence, but the intention was avoid "Rube Goldberg" type responses where someone sets up an elaborate contraption that uses rope to kill others with a trigger or some other such nonsense. It should have read "rope by itself can't kill people from a distance with the pull of a trigger". I'm not implying guns have a will of their own, that's ridiculous, and accidental misfirings are rare. <!--quoteo(post=1716766:date=Jul 10 2009, 03:38 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 10 2009, 03:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716766"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The purpose of a gun is to shoot. Some people shoot in competitions at the Olympic games and others shoot to kill people. Some people use a knife to cut food, others use it to cut people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And the purpose of a nuclear bomb is to explode. Shooting in a competition is like performing a practice bombing run or practising sword play, not like preparing food with a knife.
Edit: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->guns should be banned<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I specifically said I'm not for banning guns. I am for strict gun control though.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1716743:date=Jul 10 2009, 05:38 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 10 2009, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because a gun is no different than a knife or a baseball bat, or whatever else people claim is violent. The point is that a gun is merely a tool that is used. Of course banning a potentially violent item will reduce it's usage in violent crimes. It would be like if a nation banned rope then bragged about how one is hanging themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't seriously claim that shooting someone is the same as hitting them with a bat. It'd be like me claiming that a bat is no different to fists. Sure, you can beat someone to death with a bat or your fists, but the bat is more efficient at it, and has a smaller amount of use (bats are used to hit balls or people, hands are used for a lot of things). Same with a bat/knife and a gun.
<!--quoteo(post=1716771:date=Jul 10 2009, 05:00 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jul 10 2009, 05:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't seriously claim that shooting someone is the same as hitting them with a bat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the same in the sense that you're taking an object and using it to cause harm, which is the whole point I'm making. A gun is not an inherently evil device, just like a knife or baseball bat isn't.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
And I never said that the gun is an inherently dangerous device. I said that it is an item that takes literally 0 effort to become deadly, whereas pretty much anything else requires some effort to turn deadly.
<!--quoteo(post=1716784:date=Jul 10 2009, 06:44 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jul 10 2009, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716784"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And I never said that the gun is an inherently dangerous device. I said that it is an item that takes literally 0 effort to become deadly, whereas pretty much anything else requires some effort to turn deadly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gun: Pull a trigger.
Knife: Thrust arm forward.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it you are from the US. What state do you live in? Just curious.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A gun isn't just an object it's a weapon. It has no other uses than being a weapon. If you can't tell the difference between a household item and a gun I'm not going to let you set my Thanksgiving Day table, ever.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gun: Pull a trigger
Knife: Run up to someone, get a knife through their arms flailing around, etc.
They're not the same, at all. If they were the same, then no one would even bother using a gun in the first place.
Oh my... a lurid headline, introducing a poorly researched, superficial article, that probably less than half of you bothered to read? Thank god this degraded into gun control arguments almost instantly.
Ich esse gerne Sauerkraut und tanze gerne Polka ><
<!--quoteo(post=1716803:date=Jul 10 2009, 10:06 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jul 10 2009, 10:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A gun isn't just an object it's a weapon. It has no other uses than being a weapon. If you can't tell the difference between a household item and a gun I'm not going to let you set my Thanksgiving Day table, ever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A guns purpose is not exclusive to being a weapon. It can be a weapon but so can just about everything else. Granted it's not a household item but that doesn't change my point. In my last post I didn't think anyone was really understanding what I was trying to say so I typed it out clear as day. You and Stickman must have missed it, so I'll type it again.
The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.
It really boils down to that. If an object can be blamed for what a person does with it then you get crazy things like a country wanting to ban a video game. Even though we haven't agreed in this thread yet, would you agree that blaming an object for a violent act simply turns that object into a cheap scapegoat?
I remember some years ago here in Germany somebody went on a rampage with a knife. It's well possible and the lack of a gun won't prevent the bloodbath I'm sure... Don't understand me wrong plz, like last post, because I wouldn't prefer loose gun laws to strict laws when I'm thinking about how most people cant even drive their car properly... :D
But good ol' Germany, tries to ban paintball, banned full auto airsofts, no laser pointer on your marker or such. All forbidden, you could go to jail for breaking these laws. AND THAT'S what bugs me, all these senseless laws which result out of your strict gunlaw... Ofcourse the majority here won't care about these types of sports, well I do. And it pisses me off every time when they try to blame the next sport, or e-sport... You know what they called airsoft here in germany? "Tötungssimulation" what I guess means "Killingsimulation" lol...
<!--quoteo(post=1716858:date=Jul 11 2009, 04:22 PM:name=PhiXX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PhiXX @ Jul 11 2009, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716858"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know what they called airsoft here in germany? "Tötungssimulation" what I guess means "Killingsimulation" lol...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "They" being sensationalists with an agenda. It's pandering to the aging reactionary elite who have a deeply seated mistrust of anything they don't understand or like. You know, the people whose balls you need to lick to get a career in politics. If someone uses the word "Tötungssimulation" in a debate, be assured that they are trying to drag it down to the low level where they have the advantage of experience and familiarity.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1716855:date=Jul 11 2009, 03:16 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 11 2009, 03:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716855"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A guns purpose is not exclusive to being a weapon. It can be a weapon but so can just about everything else. Granted it's not a household item but that doesn't change my point. In my last post I didn't think anyone was really understanding what I was trying to say so I typed it out clear as day. You and Stickman must have missed it, so I'll type it again.
The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.
It really boils down to that. If an object can be blamed for what a person does with it then you get crazy things like a country wanting to ban a video game. Even though we haven't agreed in this thread yet, would you agree that blaming an object for a violent act simply turns that object into a cheap scapegoat?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is you that seems to be missing our (or rather, mine. I don't know if lolfighter feels the same) point.
We're not claiming that a gun is an inherently violent, or evil, or dangerous object. No one with any sense claims that. A gun is a tool, that is only as dangerous as the person behind it.
What we ARE saying, however, is that it is extraordinarily easy to turn a gun into a deadly or dangerous object by anyone unstable who gets their hands on it. While a knife, bat, axe or chainsaw are also objects that can become dangerous in the wrong hands, they are not as easily turned into a death dealing item. You have to get close to someone, put effort into hurting them with it. There's no detatchment in it. With a gun you aim and pull a trigger (and while some gun folk will claim there's more to it than that, I doubt it). There's a level of detachment there. It's easier to go through with the act.
You seem to be claiming that a gun is no more inherently dangerous than a bat or a knife, which is patently false. As lolfighter says above, centuries of warfare say so. If a gun is no more dangerous than a knife, why has every modern military in the world abandoned swords and knives and started using guns instead? Because guns kill people easier.
Bear in mind that a gun is a long-range weapon; even a hand gun's 'short' range is longer than a knife.
You can now argue that a knife can be thrown, but at thirty metres I know which I would prefer to be coming towards me out of a fired bullet or a tossed knife. Same goes at twenty metres, even at ten. A knife's deadliness decreases very quickly over a short distance, and for a gun the deadliness slowly decreases over a long distance. A shooting massacre is nearly always more deadly than a knifing massacre. Why? Because multiple people can take down a knife-wielding attacker a lot more easily than several people running at a gunslinger. Now with a chainsaw this is a bigger issue, but it's also easier to outrun someone lugged down with a chainsaw... not always possible but easier, and then you can consider that a policeman can tase (American: taze) a chainsaw/knife wielder but tasing a gunman is going to be more difficult.
Guns are harder to control in the hands of a madman.
<!--quoteo(post=1716870:date=Jul 11 2009, 12:57 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 11 2009, 12:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716870"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why? Because multiple people can take down a knife-wielding attacker a lot more easily than several people running at a gunslinger.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1716869:date=Jul 11 2009, 12:26 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jul 11 2009, 12:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716869"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to be claiming that a gun is no more inherently dangerous than a bat or a knife, which is patently false.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly what I'm claiming. A gun is no more <i>inherently</i> dangerous than a knife or bat. The sight of a gun locked locked in a display case does not create a feeling of danger just like a baseball player using a bat during a game does not either. The sight of an angry man pointing a gun at you or rushing you with a metal baseball bat instills a great sense of fear. What changed between these examples? How people intend to use them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As lolfighter says above, centuries of warfare say so. If a gun is no more dangerous than a knife, why has every modern military in the world abandoned swords and knives and started using guns instead? Because guns kill people easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In your above example the gun isn't the danger. The danger comes from being on a battlefield in the middle of a war. Why is that dangerous? Because they're are a bunch of people trying to kill a bunch of other people. In my eyes, it comes back to violent situations (war) or violent people (murders). If you place the blame for violent acts upon a tool and then remove that tool from society, people will use a different tool. This is because the tool has no inherent danger, it's the people who use them for dangerous means. Taken to an extreme, blaming violence on a tool will eventually lead to banning everything until people use their hands to kill others.
I'm starting to talk in circles and said I've just about everything I can to make my point. Banning counter-strike to reduce violence, banning guns to reduce violence, banning whatever to reduce violence is like putting a band-aid on a skin cancer spot. It does not nothing to address the actual problem.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
You seem to be deliberately misreading what I'm saying. I'm *not* saying that guns cause violence. No one is. You seem to be so fixated on refuting that point that you think that's what's everyone is saying.
What I am saying is that a gun has far more danger potential. You just said that a gun is no more dangerous than a bat. Why, then, does the army go through all the hassle of producing, maintaining, training and upgrading firearms?
Because *guns are better at killing people than a bat*. Or a knife. Or a chainsaw. That is why the military, in the business of killing people, relies heavily on guns. If bats or knives were as good at this, then they'd save an absolute fortune on ammo and weapons.
That's what people are saying. No one is disputing that a violent man is a violent man, who will use whatever they can get their hands on to cause harm to someone, be it a gun or a heavy paperweight. However, if they manage to get a gun, they are instantly far more dangerous than if they'd just picked up the paperweight.
"Banning guns" wouldn't stop assaults. It wouldn't stop people getting hurt, injured and killed. It won't stop that shifty guy down the road snapping and trying to hurt everyone he sees. What "banning guns" would do, however, is severely reduce their potential lethality. You say
"The sight of an angry man pointing a gun at you or rushing you with a metal baseball bat instills a great sense of fear."
I would much rather face someone with a baseball bat than someone with a gun. I'm also reasonably confidant that a crazy man going on a shooting spree would cause significantly more damage than a crazy man going on a batting spree.
Edit: this is directed at SentrySteve not X_Stickman
So basically your argument is "guns don't kill people, murderers do, so you might as well let the murders have access to guns"?
And also you say "<i>Banning counter-strike to reduce violence, banning guns to reduce violence, banning whatever to reduce violence is like putting a band-aid on a skin cancer spot.</i>" So banning The Anarchist's Cookbook was a dumb idea, was it? Maybe we should broadcast the recipe for home-made bombs during prime-time so that 11-year old Jimmy Numbnuts who has a slight grudge against his classmate and is too young to truly grasp ramifcations can make it and blow up part of his school? After all the <b><i>tool</i></b> isn't dangerous, it's the <b><i>person</i></b> who's dangerous.
Stick, what I was saying is that there is no more inherent danger in a gun than there is a bat. That's because, by itself, it can't do a thing. Yes, in the hands of someone who wants to cause the maximum amount of harm they'll be more successful with a gun compared to a paperweight but it takes the person intending to do harm before either of those objects is considered a threat.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>"Banning guns" wouldn't stop assaults. It wouldn't stop people getting hurt, injured and killed. It won't stop that shifty guy down the road snapping and trying to hurt everyone he sees. What "banning guns" would do, however, is severely reduce their potential lethality.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember when I said we're talking in circles? We're about to go full circle, check this out:
<!--QuoteBegin-"My First Post"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("My First Post")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly, you can take any potentially dangerous tool and replace it with the word "gun" in the above bolded sentences and it would make sense<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course banning guns will reduce their potential lethality. Banning any object would. To me, that's not really making a point but just stating the obvious.
If I'm understanding correctly, you're argument is: "Currently guns are the most efficient means of killing someone, so they should be banned to reduce their potential killing power." My question to you, then, is after you ban guns a new tool will emerge as the most efficient means of killing someone. Using the above logic, that tool should then be banned. Continue this trend and....
<!--QuoteBegin-"Myself in my latest reply"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Myself in my latest reply")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Taken to an extreme, blaming violence on a tool will eventually lead to banning everything until people use their hands to kill others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guns' efficiency isn't about the fact they can kill, it's that they can do it from a long distance and cause disassociation of the kill; if you're never close to enough to see your victim then you can just pull a trigger and have done with it. Getting up close requires you to see what you're doing, the effect of your actions. People are not just distance ant-like creatures, you have to see exactly what you're doing to them. It forces you to identify your victim, to give them reality to you.
Well, there is the law of diminishing returns to consider, Steve. And logical induction doesn't always need to be followed clear to the base case (edit - or to infinity, i suppose). :P
"Most effective" isn't an absolute, though, it's relative. If we ban the weapon that is "most effective" at killing people, then some other weapon becomes "most effective," that much is true. However, that weapon is still LESS EFFECTIVE. Carpet bombing is most effective, so we ban civilians from carpet-bombing each other. Now heavy machineguns on tripod are most effective, so we ban civilians from owning heavy machineguns. Assault rifles are now the most effective means of killing each other, so we ban civilians from etc. etc. etc. At no point do we make it impossible to kill another person, but we make it PROGRESSIVELY MORE DIFFICULT for Random Joe Psycho to wipe his entire village out because he feels like it. I'd really like to see somebody manage that feat with a baseball bat.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
I think the argument that the outcome of a school shooting would be significantly less bloody if the criminal was wielding a knife or a baseball bat than if he had a gun is a good valid one that, in it self, should make everyone sentient realize that banning guns would lover the homicide rate.
Comments
This is something that most pro-gun (just to clarify, I don't particularly care one way or the other) folk seem to claim; "guns are safe if you know how to use them" and/or "I've never had an incident and I can't imagine that I would."
What these claims seem to be forgetting is that people other than you can and do have access to guns. People who *aren't* as gun safety conscious as you are. People who *will* cause an incident that is not a matter of self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, you can take any potentially dangerous tool and replace it with the word "gun" in the above bolded sentences and it would make sense. Watch:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>This is something that most chefs (just to clarify, I don't particularly care one way or the other) folk seem to claim; "knives are safe if you know how to use them" and/or "I've never had an incident and I can't imagine that I would."
What these claims seem to be forgetting is that people other than you can and do have access to knives. People who *aren't* as knife safety conscious as you are. People who *will* cause a violent incident that has nothing to do with cooking.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See? You didn't really make any point. And you can't. Because a gun is no different than a knife or a baseball bat, or whatever else people claim is violent. The point is that a gun is merely a tool that is used. Of course banning a potentially violent item will reduce it's usage in violent crimes. It would be like if a nation banned rope then bragged about how one is hanging themselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, you <b>can't</b> take any potentially dangerous tool and replace it with the word "gun" in the above bolded sentences and have it make sense. Watch:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is something that most nuclear warhead (just to clarify, I don't particularly care one way or the other) folk seem to claim; "nuclear warheads are safe if you know how to use them" and/or "I've never had an incident and I can't imagine that I would."
What these claims seem to be forgetting is that people other than you can and do have access to nuclear warheads. People who *aren't* as nuclear warhead safety conscious as you are. People who *will* cause a violent incident that is not a matter of self defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See? You didn't really make any point. And you can't. Because a gun is different from a knife, or a baseball bat, or a nuclear warhead. The point is that a gun is not a tool. It is a weapon that has one use; it shoots to kill. Of course banning a weapon will reduce it's usage in violent crimes. It would be nothing like a nation banning rope: rope has many non-violent uses, rope can't kill people from a distance with the pull of a trigger by itself, rope as a weapon isn't efficient enough for going on a killing spree.
The purpose of a gun is to shoot. Some people shoot in competitions at the Olympic games and others shoot to kill people. Some people use a knife to cut food, others use it to cut people.
<!--quoteo(post=1716747:date=Jul 10 2009, 01:24 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jul 10 2009, 01:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716747"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->rope can't kill people from a distance with the pull of a trigger by itself<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Triggers can pull themselves? I always thought it was a person killing another person, I didn't realize the gun could operate itself.
Usually internet arguments do little to change someone's mind, but i'm convinced, guns should be banned.
But I would disagree that certain firearms are not tools. Any firearm meant for hunting is a tool like a knife is a tool. In fact, you'd use the knife to clean the animal you shot. But, like the sword had no real purpose outside of killing other human beings, handguns don't have any other purpose outside of killing human beings.
Coincidentally, any hunting shotgun is the most effective home defense weapon, combining maximum lethality and minimum penetration. Plus anyone not high or there with intent to murder you will most likely run at the sound of the shotgun's pump action.
Sorry the sentence was so ambiguous to the point of incoherence, but the intention was avoid "Rube Goldberg" type responses where someone sets up an elaborate contraption that uses rope to kill others with a trigger or some other such nonsense. It should have read "rope by itself can't kill people from a distance with the pull of a trigger". I'm not implying guns have a will of their own, that's ridiculous, and accidental misfirings are rare.
<!--quoteo(post=1716766:date=Jul 10 2009, 03:38 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 10 2009, 03:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716766"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The purpose of a gun is to shoot. Some people shoot in competitions at the Olympic games and others shoot to kill people. Some people use a knife to cut food, others use it to cut people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the purpose of a nuclear bomb is to explode. Shooting in a competition is like performing a practice bombing run or practising sword play, not like preparing food with a knife.
Edit: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->guns should be banned<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I specifically said I'm not for banning guns. I am for strict gun control though.
You can't seriously claim that shooting someone is the same as hitting them with a bat. It'd be like me claiming that a bat is no different to fists. Sure, you can beat someone to death with a bat or your fists, but the bat is more efficient at it, and has a smaller amount of use (bats are used to hit balls or people, hands are used for a lot of things). Same with a bat/knife and a gun.
It's the same in the sense that you're taking an object and using it to cause harm, which is the whole point I'm making. A gun is not an inherently evil device, just like a knife or baseball bat isn't.
Gun: Pull a trigger.
Knife: Thrust arm forward.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.
Knife: Thrust arm forward.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it you are from the US. What state do you live in? Just curious.
Knife: Thrust arm forward.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A gun isn't just an object it's a weapon. It has no other uses than being a weapon. If you can't tell the difference between a household item and a gun I'm not going to let you set my Thanksgiving Day table, ever.
Knife: Thrust arm forward.
I guess it takes less effort to move your finger than your arm? I don't see how that's really relevant, but okay.
I kind of see blaming guns for violence equal to germany, or a crazy minority in germany, wanting to ban CS. Blaming CS for violence is as silly as blaming guns for violence. The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gun: Pull a trigger
Knife: Run up to someone, get a knife through their arms flailing around, etc.
They're not the same, at all. If they were the same, then no one would even bother using a gun in the first place.
Welcome to Sweden \o/
Ich esse gerne Sauerkraut und tanze gerne Polka ><
A guns purpose is not exclusive to being a weapon. It can be a weapon but so can just about everything else. Granted it's not a household item but that doesn't change my point. In my last post I didn't think anyone was really understanding what I was trying to say so I typed it out clear as day. You and Stickman must have missed it, so I'll type it again.
The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.
It really boils down to that. If an object can be blamed for what a person does with it then you get crazy things like a country wanting to ban a video game. Even though we haven't agreed in this thread yet, would you agree that blaming an object for a violent act simply turns that object into a cheap scapegoat?
Don't understand me wrong plz, like last post, because I wouldn't prefer loose gun laws to strict laws when I'm thinking about how most people cant even drive their car properly... :D
But good ol' Germany, tries to ban paintball, banned full auto airsofts, no laser pointer on your marker or such. All forbidden, you could go to jail for breaking these laws. AND THAT'S what bugs me, all these senseless laws which result out of your strict gunlaw... Ofcourse the majority here won't care about these types of sports, well I do. And it pisses me off every time when they try to blame the next sport, or e-sport...
You know what they called airsoft here in germany? "Tötungssimulation" what I guess means "Killingsimulation" lol...
"They" being sensationalists with an agenda. It's pandering to the aging reactionary elite who have a deeply seated mistrust of anything they don't understand or like. You know, the people whose balls you need to lick to get a career in politics.
If someone uses the word "Tötungssimulation" in a debate, be assured that they are trying to drag it down to the low level where they have the advantage of experience and familiarity.
The object a person uses to do a violent act can't be blamed for the person being violent.
It really boils down to that. If an object can be blamed for what a person does with it then you get crazy things like a country wanting to ban a video game. Even though we haven't agreed in this thread yet, would you agree that blaming an object for a violent act simply turns that object into a cheap scapegoat?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is you that seems to be missing our (or rather, mine. I don't know if lolfighter feels the same) point.
We're not claiming that a gun is an inherently violent, or evil, or dangerous object. No one with any sense claims that. A gun is a tool, that is only as dangerous as the person behind it.
What we ARE saying, however, is that it is extraordinarily easy to turn a gun into a deadly or dangerous object by anyone unstable who gets their hands on it. While a knife, bat, axe or chainsaw are also objects that can become dangerous in the wrong hands, they are not as easily turned into a death dealing item. You have to get close to someone, put effort into hurting them with it. There's no detatchment in it. With a gun you aim and pull a trigger (and while some gun folk will claim there's more to it than that, I doubt it). There's a level of detachment there. It's easier to go through with the act.
You seem to be claiming that a gun is no more inherently dangerous than a bat or a knife, which is patently false. As lolfighter says above, centuries of warfare say so. If a gun is no more dangerous than a knife, why has every modern military in the world abandoned swords and knives and started using guns instead? Because guns kill people easier.
You can now argue that a knife can be thrown, but at thirty metres I know which I would prefer to be coming towards me out of a fired bullet or a tossed knife. Same goes at twenty metres, even at ten. A knife's deadliness decreases very quickly over a short distance, and for a gun the deadliness slowly decreases over a long distance. A shooting massacre is nearly always more deadly than a knifing massacre. Why? Because multiple people can take down a knife-wielding attacker a lot more easily than several people running at a gunslinger. Now with a chainsaw this is a bigger issue, but it's also easier to outrun someone lugged down with a chainsaw... not always possible but easier, and then you can consider that a policeman can tase (American: taze) a chainsaw/knife wielder but tasing a gunman is going to be more difficult.
Guns are harder to control in the hands of a madman.
A book by Stephan King has taught me this well.
That's exactly what I'm claiming. A gun is no more <i>inherently</i> dangerous than a knife or bat. The sight of a gun locked locked in a display case does not create a feeling of danger just like a baseball player using a bat during a game does not either. The sight of an angry man pointing a gun at you or rushing you with a metal baseball bat instills a great sense of fear. What changed between these examples? How people intend to use them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As lolfighter says above, centuries of warfare say so. If a gun is no more dangerous than a knife, why has every modern military in the world abandoned swords and knives and started using guns instead? Because guns kill people easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In your above example the gun isn't the danger. The danger comes from being on a battlefield in the middle of a war. Why is that dangerous? Because they're are a bunch of people trying to kill a bunch of other people. In my eyes, it comes back to violent situations (war) or violent people (murders). If you place the blame for violent acts upon a tool and then remove that tool from society, people will use a different tool. This is because the tool has no inherent danger, it's the people who use them for dangerous means. Taken to an extreme, blaming violence on a tool will eventually lead to banning everything until people use their hands to kill others.
I'm starting to talk in circles and said I've just about everything I can to make my point. Banning counter-strike to reduce violence, banning guns to reduce violence, banning whatever to reduce violence is like putting a band-aid on a skin cancer spot. It does not nothing to address the actual problem.
What I am saying is that a gun has far more danger potential. You just said that a gun is no more dangerous than a bat. Why, then, does the army go through all the hassle of producing, maintaining, training and upgrading firearms?
Because *guns are better at killing people than a bat*. Or a knife. Or a chainsaw. That is why the military, in the business of killing people, relies heavily on guns. If bats or knives were as good at this, then they'd save an absolute fortune on ammo and weapons.
That's what people are saying. No one is disputing that a violent man is a violent man, who will use whatever they can get their hands on to cause harm to someone, be it a gun or a heavy paperweight. However, if they manage to get a gun, they are instantly far more dangerous than if they'd just picked up the paperweight.
"Banning guns" wouldn't stop assaults. It wouldn't stop people getting hurt, injured and killed. It won't stop that shifty guy down the road snapping and trying to hurt everyone he sees. What "banning guns" would do, however, is severely reduce their potential lethality. You say
"The sight of an angry man pointing a gun at you or rushing you with a metal baseball bat instills a great sense of fear."
I would much rather face someone with a baseball bat than someone with a gun. I'm also reasonably confidant that a crazy man going on a shooting spree would cause significantly more damage than a crazy man going on a batting spree.
So basically your argument is "guns don't kill people, murderers do, so you might as well let the murders have access to guns"?
And also you say "<i>Banning counter-strike to reduce violence, banning guns to reduce violence, banning whatever to reduce violence is like putting a band-aid on a skin cancer spot.</i>" So banning The Anarchist's Cookbook was a dumb idea, was it? Maybe we should broadcast the recipe for home-made bombs during prime-time so that 11-year old Jimmy Numbnuts who has a slight grudge against his classmate and is too young to truly grasp ramifcations can make it and blow up part of his school? After all the <b><i>tool</i></b> isn't dangerous, it's the <b><i>person</i></b> who's dangerous.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>"Banning guns" wouldn't stop assaults. It wouldn't stop people getting hurt, injured and killed. It won't stop that shifty guy down the road snapping and trying to hurt everyone he sees. What "banning guns" would do, however, is severely reduce their potential lethality.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember when I said we're talking in circles? We're about to go full circle, check this out:
<!--QuoteBegin-"My First Post"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("My First Post")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly, you can take any potentially dangerous tool and replace it with the word "gun" in the above bolded sentences and it would make sense<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course banning guns will reduce their potential lethality. Banning any object would. To me, that's not really making a point but just stating the obvious.
If I'm understanding correctly, you're argument is: "Currently guns are the most efficient means of killing someone, so they should be banned to reduce their potential killing power." My question to you, then, is after you ban guns a new tool will emerge as the most efficient means of killing someone. Using the above logic, that tool should then be banned. Continue this trend and....
<!--QuoteBegin-"Myself in my latest reply"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Myself in my latest reply")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Taken to an extreme, blaming violence on a tool will eventually lead to banning everything until people use their hands to kill others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See? A full circle.
That said, I'm not for banning firearms, either.