......
/enjoy your gun fetish
/enjoy your gun fetish
Hey, that's rude! I dont think anyone here actually has sex with guns, no matter how much they fancy them.
Topic: In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid? - page 7. (Read 15506 times)
Hey, that's rude! I dont think anyone here actually has sex with guns, no matter how much they fancy them.
Except guns are designed specifically for killing.
Well that settles it. Guns are Evil objects, imbued with malevolent powers by their very nature. Humans are powerless to prevent harm in their presence.
Even worse than drugs!
/enjoy your gun fetish
The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.
http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html
Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe. Although this article doesn't touch it, this is also true for murder unless you are someone who has first hand contact with criminal elements, as roughly 80% of murders in this country can still be connected to people with a prior criminal history; and that stat is actually much lower in Europe. (I admit, I do not have access to those stats right now) This is not to say this is acceptable, since many of those people are simply drug addicts or family members and not otherwise inclined toward criminal activity themselves, but it does put the murder rate into perspective. Furthermore, as is true in Europe, some individual states (and particular cities) are safer than others. Generally speaking, those US states with lower crime rates also have lower legal barriers for a citizen to obtain a firearms license. This may not be cause & effect, admittedly, as states with higher crime rates might be more inclined to pass weapons restrictions as a result. However, in every case wherein gun laws were relaxed for the law abiding, crime rates have decreased. There is one city in Georgia that famously passed a law compelling all households to buy and keep a weapon, due to a very high local crime rate in 1982. That law is still in effect, and that city has the lowest crime rate in Georgia today.
I live in Australia and feel safe. We have twice as many assaults but only one-fifth the murders that occur in the US. Our fights tend to be non-lethal.
Regardless, why is it that so many Americans feel unsafe? If you read the "gun control" threads, you'd think all US citizens were under constant threat of annihilation from their fellow citizens or their government. If the average law abiding US citizen is as safe as I am, why don't they think they are?
and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.
Way to piss off both myrkul and augustocroppo
When I see complete stupidity I can't help myself, it's just too easy
The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.
http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html
Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe. Although this article doesn't touch it, this is also true for murder unless you are someone who has first hand contact with criminal elements, as roughly 80% of murders in this country can still be connected to people with a prior criminal history; and that stat is actually much lower in Europe. (I admit, I do not have access to those stats right now) This is not to say this is acceptable, since many of those people are simply drug addicts or family members and not otherwise inclined toward criminal activity themselves, but it does put the murder rate into perspective. Furthermore, as is true in Europe, some individual states (and particular cities) are safer than others. Generally speaking, those US states with lower crime rates also have lower legal barriers for a citizen to obtain a firearms license. This may not be cause & effect, admittedly, as states with higher crime rates might be more inclined to pass weapons restrictions as a result. However, in every case wherein gun laws were relaxed for the law abiding, crime rates have decreased. There is one city in Georgia that famously passed a law compelling all households to buy and keep a weapon, due to a very high local crime rate in 1982. That law is still in effect, and that city has the lowest crime rate in Georgia today.
and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.
Way to piss off both myrkul and augustocroppo
and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.
Yes, as a matter of fact.
There is a Marvel character who uses a bow for numerous special purposes, which killing is but one of. In one scene of the recent Avengers movie, he uses it to download a virus onto a computer by firing a specially designed arrow into a dataport. So you see, it is the intent of the user that determines the use of a weapon.
There is a Marvel character who uses a bow for numerous special purposes, which killing is but one of. In one scene of the recent Avengers movie, he uses it to download a virus onto a computer by firing a specially designed arrow into a dataport. So you see, it is the intent of the user that determines the use of a weapon.
The discussion is about REAL weapons, not FICTIONAL weapons. If bows were not designed to kill, for what purpose bows were designed for? Which results the bow designer intended to obtain with an arrow thrown from his invention?
Guns are designed to fire projectiles. It is the intent of the person behind the gun that determines it's purpose.
You are confusing the purpose of the designer with the purpose of the final user. These are two different subjects. The purpose of the final user does not determine the purpose of the designer (or the purpose of the design). Most of all firearms were invented (and are invented) to kill. In other words, the intention of the final user have no influence over the intention of the designer. The purpose of the designer come first than the purpose of the final user.
Take, for instance, these:
Fired from a standard shotgun, these projectiles are designed not to kill.
If a gun is designed only to kill, why then, do these projectiles even exist?
Fired from a standard shotgun, these projectiles are designed not to kill.
If a gun is designed only to kill, why then, do these projectiles even exist?
You are again confusing the intent of the final user with the intent of the designer. These projectiles were designed for a specif purpose which is determined by the final user, not by the designer.
e.g.
Paintball guns were invented to NOT kill. The purpose of the weapon design is to mark the target with paint. If a paintball gun ammo is invented to kill, the main purpose of the weapon design will not change. Paintball guns are weapons designed to NOT kill. The purpose of the designer come first than the purpose of the final user.
By the way, I am not arguing that most firearms are only useful to kill. I am arguing that most firearms were (and are) specially designed to kill. That is the main purpose of the firearm design. As the final user intent have no influence over the designer intent, the designer intent also have no influence over the final user intent. Thus the final user is free to employ the firearm for whatever purpose he/she deem necessary.
Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.
Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.
Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.
You had a chance of survival of 10% if you were a soviet soldier on June 22nd 1941.
Let me make it clear: 90% chance of being dead by 1947.
If the more realistic war films etc. are anything to go by all you do is just stand around for ages taking shit from officers lol
...as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.
Yes, did you consider partaking in a combat zone ? After all, the chances of getting hit by a bullet and killed ain't that big..
As a younger man I heard about a person shooting 3 other people and then himself at a day, here in Germany.
Some days later I heard he was a member of my own school class some years ago.
I remember him as a GOOD guy in our class, but later he decided to be a BAD one.
It became known he was in a shooting club, he shooted thousands of bullets in peace, but needed only 4 bullets for 4 people shooting them to death. He selected his victims arbitrarily. In his farewell letter he wrote: I didn't know how easy it is to shoot people to death.
Some days later I heard he was a member of my own school class some years ago.
I remember him as a GOOD guy in our class, but later he decided to be a BAD one.
It became known he was in a shooting club, he shooted thousands of bullets in peace, but needed only 4 bullets for 4 people shooting them to death. He selected his victims arbitrarily. In his farewell letter he wrote: I didn't know how easy it is to shoot people to death.
Like I said guys, stupid hypothetical arguments that I refuse to take part in any more, it's like having an argument on the internet about whether someone could kick your arse, it's never going to end
I agree. The question of gun control in the US is moot. There are plenty of unregistered illegal weapons available in that country, and gun control won't prevent them from being sold on. Plus it's not impossible to print your own weapon if you have access to a 3D printer.
The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated. In this context arguing about gun control is like arguing about the relative safety of fallout shelters during a nuclear war.
I feel the media is to blame, if they don't blow things up, no one else will want their name to be remembered in history. I don't think we went a few days without some sort of shocking shooting being blown all over the media after the school shooting even though it happens all the time.
Like I said guys, stupid hypothetical arguments that I refuse to take part in any more, it's like having an argument on the internet about whether someone could kick your arse, it's never going to end
Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.
Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.
Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.
A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.
Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?
Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks. It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder. I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.
Nothing is new about those arguments. We have seen them time and time again. Almost anything can be used to kill (car, knife, chemical) and those things are not regulated.
As I have said, I do not believe any any proposed gun control law would have a big impact on these types of shootings. There are changes to America that could be made to reduce gun violence but I do not believe the political will exists to do them. There are a lot of voluntary changes that could be made in media and reporting (the coverage of these events probably drives more of these events to happen) but this is also very unlikely to happen. Big media makes too much money off of these events.
If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.
Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
Wow, and I though the 10,000 rounds of ammo I shot this year was for fun, shit..
I guess you have never heard of a bayonet.
Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.
Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.
Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.
A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.
Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?
Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks. It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder. I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.
Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?
It didn't backfire. You are not the best judge of such things.
Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.
Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.
Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.
A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.
Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?
Jump to: