Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roger Hicks said:
Even more shameful to bury your head in the sand; to be too indifferent to read what has often been a rational and thoughtful discussion, yet without actually presenting any new arguments. Quite a lot of the posts here have not been either mindlessly pro-gun nor mindlessly anti-gun. To borrow your own phrase, show some respect.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Indifferent I am not.

Burying your head in the sand is pretending that removing an object will prevent your fellow man from doing what he will just do with another implement. It's doing something for the sake of having said something was done without doing anything about the problem at all. This is a societal issue, not an object issue and it's not just an american problem, it's a global one. If a person decides to commit murder, the method comes second. If they don't have a gun they will use whatever else is convenient. Not having the gun does not prevent them from committing the crime.

The focus is wrong and continues to be wrong and won't be solved by repeating mantras of guns are bad, guns kill, guns are bad, guns kill.. so yes I skipped those posts. They had absolutely nothing to offer as insight. I have read both anti gun and pro gun posts in this thread that say more than that, but until we become an anti violent society I can't see the logic in becoming an anti gun society even if I wish it could be that way.

Facts are facts that live outside of specialized groups. Reading that murders happened without guns is fact.. giving those facts less importance because a group that you don't approve of uses those facts in support of their stance is just ignorance. You don't throw out relevant facts just to make your agenda seem more legitimate. Thus far I have not seen any facts that prove that taking weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens will stop the criminal ilk from misbehaving. I just hear, guns are bad, guns kill, guns are weapons of death, guns are bad. Pft..
 
Roger Hicks said:
Why? This is a complete non sequitur. By the same argument, I should be allowed to own a Bren gun. I cheerfully admit that .303 light machine guns are fun, but I don't feel hard done by that I can't have one.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

It would be great if you could own one. You can buy a semi auto version here in the states, and if you have the money, the real full auto.
 
isoterica said:
Indifferent I am not.

Burying your head in the sand is pretending that removing an object will prevent your fellow man from doing what he will just do with another implement. It's doing something for the sake of having said something was done without doing anything about the problem at all. This is a societal issue, not an object issue and it's not just an american problem, it's a global one. If a person decides to commit murder, the method comes second. If they don't have a gun they will use whatever else is convenient. Not having the gun does not prevent them from committing the crime.

The focus is wrong and continues to be wrong and won't be solved by repeating mantras of guns are bad, guns kill, guns are bad, guns kill.. so yes I skipped those posts. They had absolutely nothing to offer as insight. I have read both anti gun and pro gun posts in this thread that say more than that, but until we become an anti violent society I can't see the logic in becoming an anti gun society even if I wish it could be that way.

Facts are facts that live outside of specialized groups. Reading that murders happened without guns is fact.. giving those facts less importance because a group that you don't approve of uses those facts in support of their stance is just ignorance. You don't throw out relevant facts just to make your agenda seem more legitimate. Thus far I have not seen any facts that prove that taking weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens will stop the criminal ilk from misbehaving. I just hear, guns are bad, guns kill, guns are weapons of death, guns are bad. Pft..
Click to expand...

Thanks. Chicago has got to be worse than the state of California when it comes to gun laws.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
The arguement of the person behind these shootings being mentally unstable is just half of the problem. If they didn't have access to weapons and ammunition, you have to ask if events with these body counts would even happen.
Click to expand...

He would have bashed his mothers head in with a baseball bat or stabbed her and then drove his car to the school, through the windows and run them down.. The murderer's decision is made by the desire to murder, not by the convenience of it. If you are drunk don't get in a car you might hurt someone.. the car however did not get you drunk, don't blame the car.

I do not like that society has to have guns but I am not willing to be a victim, a statistic, a memorialized hole in the ground in the name of false illusion. People must change FIRST. Until people do as a whole.. all of us are left vulnerable. That is not what I want for my family or their families. Let's work on real solutions.. not these false illusions.
 
This is the only way to prevent future crime.

This is the only way to prevent future crime.

minority-report.jpg
 
E__WOK said:
Liquid nitrogen can be purchased like candy over here.
Click to expand...
I did say I wasn't sure (in the UK) so it wasn't the ideal example. However, that wasn't an answer to my question: why should being former military and trained on a weapon entitle you to civilian ownership of same? If you had military training on a rocket launcher, or a nuclear weapon, should you be entitled to that too?
 
hteasley said:
I thought hunting was a big rationale for having guns?
Click to expand...

Yes but I am speaking in relation to guns being used by people on people.. which is the basis behind this post. You are right though that did sound all inclusive :) Just didn't think that way because I am not a hunter.
 
isoterica said:
He would have bashed his mothers head in with a baseball bat or stabbed her and then drove his car to the school, through the windows and run them down.. The murderer's decision is made by the desire to murder, no
Click to expand...

So. If guns are no good at killing (which seems to be your argument, ludicrous as it seems) - why do you buy the bloody things?

If you can kill just as many people with a knife or a baseball bat, why don't you go chasing after bunnies with them?
 
Paul T. said:
So. If guns are no good at killing (which seems to be your argument, ludicrous as it seems) - why do you buy the bloody things?

If you can kill just as many people with a knife or a baseball bat, why don't you go chasing after bunnies with them?
Click to expand...

That didn't even make sense. Murder existed before guns. People kill, guns are tools. This is the nonsense I referred to in my original post that I felt no need to dwell on. It doesn't address the societal problem at all. it's just circuitous banter.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Now are talking ludicrous.

Come on people, add something of value to the discussion. Or what is the point?
Click to expand...

Amen. There isn't any point to the discussion, digitalintrigue, none: anti-gunners and pro-gunners are just :bang::bang::bang::bang: Here's the empirical test - how many folks here, as a function of all these posts, have reversed their already existing views on private ownership of firearms for self-defense purposes while carrying those weapons in public?

Aha, just what I thought - zero

I for one will lead the way. I'm outta here :)
 
frank-grumman said:
Amen. There isn't any point to the discussion, digitalintrigue, none: anti-gunners and pro-gunners are just :bang::bang::bang::bang: Here's the empirical test - how many folks here, as a function of all these posts, have reversed their already existing views on private ownership of firearms for self-defense purposes while carrying those weapons in public?

Aha, just what I thought - zero

I for one will lead the way. I'm outta here :)
Click to expand...

I am more pro solution and not being a statistic in the process.. you are right though, this post was never about solutions.. or memoriallizing.. it was about stance and while there have been some excellent arguments on both sides it's kind of a go nowhere thing because the actual issue has not been addressed and no one seems willing to go there.. that's too hard.
 
isoterica said:
He would have bashed his mothers head in with a baseball bat or stabbed her and then drove his car to the school, through the windows and run them down.. The murderer's decision is made by the desire to murder, not by the convenience of it. If you are drunk don't get in a car you might hurt someone.. the car however did not get you drunk, don't blame the car.

I do not like that society has to have guns but I am not willing to be a victim, a statistic, a memorialized hole in the ground in the name of false illusion. People must change FIRST. Until people do as a whole.. all of us are left vulnerable. That is not what I want for my family or their families. Let's work on real solutions.. not these false illusions.
Click to expand...

I pointed out earlier in the thread, but I didn't see anyone pick up on it: the recent school stabbings in China? Where the crazy man stabbed 22 kids? All of them survived. Every single stabbed child survived the attack.

The difference with Newtown is stark. Yes, nearly anything can be dangerous and become a weapon. But guns are so much easier and so much more deadly, that they are of a different category. When you argue that "the maniac would have just used something else", you're not making things equal. You're just not.
 
And they will never understand that hteasley..

I'd like to see them try to explain to the parents who just lost their children in that attack why guns aren't bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom