NationStates Jolt Archive

that got you lookin didnt it?

am i the only person in the world that believes guns are a big peice of shit, i know the old saying that a gun isnt evil that the person is, but guns make it a bit too easy for people to be massive pricks. take a look at Manchester; its always had its problems but now the illegal gun trade is turning it into a ghetto. shame too, Manchesters a cool place.

i know that guns have there place and a lot of people will come up with a lot of reasons why im a fag, but seriously guns are responsible for a lot of avoidable misery.

Discuss.

Why would not having a gun make you homosexual?

Why would not having a gun make you homosexual?

damn you beet me to it!

that got you lookin didnt it?

am i the only person in the world that believes guns are a big peice of shit, i know the old saying that a gun isnt evil that the person is, but guns make it a bit too easy for people to be massive pricks. take a look at Manchester; its always had its problems but now the illegal gun trade is turning it into a ghetto. shame too, Manchesters a cool place.

i know that guns have there place and a lot of people will come up with a lot of reasons why im a fag, but seriously guns are responsible for a lot of avoidable misery.

Discuss.

meh, i think i agree with you, they shouldn't be forbidden, but strictly controled.

Thank you for making my arguement for me. "Illegal guns" used by criminals are the problem.

Glad you agree.

Thank you for making my arguement for me. "Illegal guns" used by criminals are the problem.

Glad you agree.

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

Yes they would.

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

Please tell me you're not really that naive?

Of course firearms are by their nature evil things. Other than a few models made for hunting, all they are made for are to kill other people. Hardly something that has an useful purpose but to make someone feel powerful, like they can do anything they want. People can make whatever argument they wish on why someone should be allowed to own a gun but it comes down to that simple fact, guns have no useful purpose but to cause conflict.

Of course firearms are by their nature evil things. Other than a few models made for hunting, all they are made for are to kill other people. Hardly something that has an useful purpose but to make someone feel powerful, like they can do anything they want. People can make whatever argument they wish on why someone should be allowed to own a gun but it comes down to that simple fact, guns have no useful purpose but to cause conflict.

Only in your limited imagination.

If people didnt have guns, they would kill each other with knives or crossbows or something.
Why?
Well, we've been doing it for the last 20,000 years or so. People are traditionalists.

Besides, how exactly do you plan to stop people from getting guns? Remember how effective prohibition was in the US?
If a person REALLY wants something, they WILL get it. Or make a concentrated effort, at least. If all else fails, a person can simply MAKE a gun, its not quite as difficult as people think. Although such homemade products tend to explode.

not naive, more idealistic. i used to do a lot of work for amnesty international running a uni group. one of amnestys main goals is the abolition of trade in small arms. i agree with the use of rifles for hunting and with shotgus for scaring shit off your land, but i really cant be doing with small arms which in most peoples hands are innacurate and mainly good for hiding on your person.

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

There are going to be legal guns unless the progress of technological and industrial development stops in it's tracks and goes backward. If we ever fall into a Dark Age, then eventually the evil guns will no longer exist.

But otherwise, they will. I wouldn't waste time chasing a pipe dream and instead learn to accept that guns exist.

If people didnt have guns, they would kill each other with knives or crossbows or something.
Why?
Well, we've been doing it for the last 20,000 years or so. People are traditionalists.

i think thats my favourite quote ever

not naive, more idealistic. i used to do a lot of work for amnesty international running a uni group. one of amnestys main goals is the abolition of trade in small arms. i agree with the use of rifles for hunting and with shotgus for scaring shit off your land, but i really cant be doing with small arms which in most peoples hands are innacurate and mainly good for hiding on your person.

"Most people's hands"? "Mainly good for hiding on your person"? That really says nothing.

Of course the international trade in small arms are primarily to gov'ts and has nothing to do w/ civilian ownership nor the weapons primarily used in crime.

not naive, more idealistic. i used to do a lot of work for amnesty international running a uni group. one of amnestys main goals is the abolition of trade in small arms. i agree with the use of rifles for hunting and with shotgus for scaring shit off your land, but i really cant be doing with small arms which in most peoples hands are innacurate and mainly good for hiding on your person.

you do know the title Small Arms covers the two you said

"Most people's hands"? "Mainly good for hiding on your person"? That really says nothing.

Of course the international trade in small arms are primarily to gov'ts and has nothing to do w/ civilian ownership nor the weapons primarily used in crime.

please, you obviously know exactly how the trade works so why not tell us how guns get into civillian hands out in africa or manchester and tell us how you would stop it?

i think that came off a bit too sarcastic, i honestly want to hear your views though

Only in your limited imagination.

:rolleyes:

you do know the title Small Arms covers the two you said

yes but i was trying to make a rounded point.

yes but i was trying to make a rounded point.

then you should have said handguns

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

Yeah, they would. They'd steal them from police and military, smuggle them in from third world hellholes, and make their own. In the Philipines you can buy homemade submachine guns, revolvers, pistols and rifles. It's a cottage industry over there.

please, you obviously know exactly how the trade works so why not tell us how guns get into civillian hands out in africa or manchester and tell us how you would stop it?

i think that came off a bit too sarcastic, i honestly want to hear your views though

Most international sales are to Gov'ts. In Africa, we all know how wonderfully stable those gov'ts are and most of them use Soviet equipment that was stolen or sold by them. It has nothing to do w/ private ownership.

As for the UK, it is mostly by firearms stolen and shipped in by more criminals.

How would I stop it?

In the UK, by increasing penalties on those who use them, encouraging self-defense against criminals, and stop punishing those who do defend themselves.

In Africa, well, that situation is and has been pretty much FUBARed. Disarming those who are being massacred, however, is not the answer.

If people didnt have guns, they would kill each other with knives or crossbows or something.
Why?
Well, we've been doing it for the last 20,000 years or so. People are traditionalists.

Besides, how exactly do you plan to stop people from getting guns? Remember how effective prohibition was in the US?
If a person REALLY wants something, they WILL get it. Or make a concentrated effort, at least. If all else fails, a person can simply MAKE a gun, its not quite as difficult as people think. Although such homemade products tend to explode.

Apply that argument to drugs works just as well. Shall we legalise them as well?

Apply that argument to drugs works just as well. Shall we legalise them as well?

Yep.

Yeah, they would. They'd steal them from police and military, smuggle them in from third world hellholes, and make their own. In the Philipines you can buy homemade submachine guns, revolvers, pistols and rifles. It's a cottage industry over there.

Yet I suppose there are people who argue that these guns aren't meant to kill their fellow human beings. Maybe they will be sold to people going on safari instead. :rolleyes:

Guns don't kill people. I kill people.

But seriously, if you really wanted to kill someone and didn't have a gun then you'd get a knife or sword and stab them to death. That usually takes a while longer and is considerably more painful. Clubs and canes are an even worse way to go. It's true that guncrimes drop when guns are banned but other, more painful violent crime sky-rockets and when you ban guns only criminals will have them. If you're planning to kill someone you won't really care that much about breaking one more law.

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

That is just SO not true

The UK has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world. It did even before the hand gun ban after that idiot went crazy at the school in Dunblaine.

Point is there are NO legally owned handguns in the UK now beyond .22 calibre target pistols. So whatever's being used in Manchester has been smuggled into the country.

Since gun crime has actually continued to rise after the ban on handguns here it's not unreasonable to make the following assumptions-

Gun crime almost never involved the use of guns which were legally owned and criminals alwaysed used smuggled guns which would be harder to trace.

The ban on hand guns did nothing except piss off a load of law abiding responsible gun owners.

How much gun crime is there?

Gun crime has increased in recent years, including a near doubling of handgun offences since 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre.

In 2001-02, there were some 22,300 firearms offences, a rise of almost a third on the previous year. The number of people killed by firearms was 23.


Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm)

the article goes on to say that the problem is not so much the guns crime itself, but that it is a symptom of the drugs trade. Which is fairly obvious how the guns are getting into the country - alongside the drugs shipments. Doesn't take a genious to see that cracking down on Illegal drugs then should have an impact on gun crime.

So while I understand your sentiments I have to reiterate the cliche - guns are not evil, only people can be evil, as you've said they have their sad but necessary place.
If the weapon of choice wasn't guns it would be knives and clubs.

Guns don't kill people. I kill people.

But seriously, if you really wanted to kill someone and didn't have a gun then you'd get a knife or sword and stab them to death. That usually takes a while longer and is considerably more painful. Clubs and canes are an even worse way to go. It's true that guncrimes drop when guns are banned but other, more painful violent crime sky-rockets and when you ban guns only criminals will have them. If you're planning to kill someone you won't really care that much about breaking one more law.

Actually, in numerous instances, gun crimes increased when guns were banned.

Most international sales are to Gov'ts. In Africa, we all know how wonderfully stable those gov'ts are and most of them use Soviet equipment that was stolen or sold by them. It has nothing to do w/ private ownership.

As for the UK, it is mostly by firearms stolen and shipped in by more criminals.

How would I stop it?

In the UK, by increasing penalties on those who use them, encouraging self-defense against criminals, and stop punishing those who do defend themselves.

In Africa, well, that situation is and has been pretty much FUBARed. Disarming those who are being massacred, however, is not the answer.

to a point i do agree with you, and i know that there is no easy answer for africa. in the uk though the situation could be turned back around. for a start most of our police dont carry guns, there are specialist tactical units for that sort of thing. ( my oldest friend is in one such unit) but the point is if these arms werent being traded in the first place then criminals wouldnt be able to rip them off.

[quote]Quote:
How much gun crime is there?

Gun crime has increased in recent years, including a near doubling of handgun offences since 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre.

In 2001-02, there were some 22,300 firearms offences, a rise of almost a third on the previous year. The number of people killed by firearms was 23.


Actually, in numerous instances, gun crimes increased when guns were banned.

Yes, but you would have to take into account that just possessing a gun becomes a crime then those who decide to break that law become criminals. Doesn't mean more people are actually getting shot.

Yes, but you would have to take into account that just possessing a gun becomes a crime then those who decide to break that law become criminals. Doesn't mean more people are actually getting shot.

I'm including violent crime in my statement. (ie chicago, Wash DC, etc.)

to a point i do agree with you, and i know that there is no easy answer for africa. in the uk though the situation could be turned back around. for a start most of our police dont carry guns, there are specialist tactical units for that sort of thing. ( my oldest friend is in one such unit) but the point is if these arms werent being traded in the first place then criminals wouldnt be able to rip them off.

Sure they would. Like it was pointed out, homemade ones are made fairly easily.

Sure they would. Like it was pointed out, homemade ones are made fairly easily.


shit you noticed my stealthy ignorance of a point i didnt have a counter for.
i think the point im trying to make is that thats a good point you made.

I'm including violent crime in my statement. (ie chicago, Wash DC, etc.)

Specifically

violent crime = increasing

or

violent crime + non-violent crime = total increasing

I'm assuming the first but just to be sure.

As far as guns go I'd take a horses for courses approach. Based on the culture in the UK, and the fact that it's an island make it easier to regulate and police guns. The USA on the other hand with a culture a significant part of which favours guns with large generally open borders is less suitable for heavy regulation. It's foolish to adopt a one size fits all approach without examining the realities of the individual situations.

Actually, in numerous instances, gun crimes increased when guns were banned.
Yes but I'm using anti-gun acitvist stats just to be "fair and balanced".

shit you noticed my stealthy ignorance of a point i didnt have a counter for.
i think the point im trying to make is that thats a good point you made.

Thank you.

I also oppose arming groups who commit atrocities. However, disarming those who are being massacred (hutu/tutsi massacres) even w/o firearms isn't the answer either.

Firearms are a reality. The UK effectively banned them and did nothing but encourage an increasingly violent youth subculture to turn to other means and increase the levels of victimization as well as encouraging smuggling.

In the US, crime dropped by double digits for years even w/ an increase in ownership and a relaxing of laws in most places. It had more to do w/ an improved economy and less social tensions.

I own firearms for home defense, historical reenacting, varmint control, collecting, as well as just enjoying target shooting.

Early posts confirm a new addition to the list of anti-gun mentalities.

Prior to this the list of categories of people likely to oppose private gun ownership include:

Idiots who think there's no other way to kill people.
Idiots who think guns have a mind of their own
Idiots who think that banning them will allow the government to find and destroy all of them, thus preventing gun-related crime.
Idiots who think that God and government are one and the same, so resisting the government is a mortal sin.
Idiots who think the universe is run by majority rule.
Idiots who think collectivism is morally justifiable, and realize that the existence of guns is not conducive to the imposition of collectivism.
Idiots who object to people protecting themselves from criminals.

The new one is:

Idiots who think that people should never be allowed to run their own lives. This includes, communists, fascists, statists, authoritarians, people who enjoy power for power's sake and people who object to people being their own bosses.

Now I issue two challenges. To kindred spirits: continue adding to the list. To opponents: Prove me wrong.

Specifically

violent crime = increasing

or

violent crime + non-violent crime = total increasing

I'm assuming the first but just to be sure.

As far as guns go I'd take a horses for courses approach. Based on the culture in the UK, and the fact that it's an island make it easier to regulate and police guns. The USA on the other hand with a culture a significant part of which favours guns with large generally open borders is less suitable for heavy regulation. It's foolish to adopt a one size fits all approach without examining the realities of the individual situations.

Agreed. What arguably works in the UK wouldn't work in the US, etc. Even in smaller situations. What "works" in Chicago, doesn't work in the rest of the state yet Hizzoner King Dick Daley thinks we should justify to him why we should be "allowed" to own firearms he doesn't like.

Early posts confirm a new addition to the list of anti-gun mentalities.

Prior to this the list of categories of people likely to oppose private gun ownership include:

Idiots who think there's no other way to kill people.
Idiots who think guns have a mind of their own
Idiots who think that banning them will allow the government to find and destroy all of them, thus preventing gun-related crime.
Idiots who think that God and government are one and the same, so resisting the government is a mortal sin.
Idiots who think the universe is run by majority rule.
Idiots who think collectivism is morally justifiable, and realize that the existence of guns is not conducive to the imposition of collectivism.
Idiots who object to people protecting themselves from criminals.

The new one is:

Idiots who think that people should never be allowed to run their own lives. This includes, communists, fascists, statists, authoritarians, people who enjoy power for power's sake and people who object to people being their own bosses.

Now I issue two challenges. To kindred spirits: continue adding to the list. To opponents: Prove me wrong.

How about I add another one.

Idiots who don't know what a gun is designed for.

Yes, but you would have to take into account that just possessing a gun becomes a crime then those who decide to break that law become criminals. Doesn't mean more people are actually getting shot.

There are no gun detector vans that go around looking for people with guns. The people being caught for posession, especially now so many years after the handgun ban, are the criminals who are caught for something else and THEN found to also have a gun on them or at their place of abode. The hard fact is that even owning a handgun is a crime now (with the exception of the target pistols mentioned before) and the only reason to have one is if you have (or think you have) a need to defend yourself against someone else with a gun. The fact that nobody had been actually shot in those instances would be irrelevant.

Perhaps you may suggest that some people didnt hand in their guns during the Amnesty. That may be true but it is highly unlikely. My friend was the president of a gun club and I know for a fact that Police (prior to the ban) conducted routine inspections to ensure that facilities were up to standard and the gun keeping facilities in the owners home were up to standard and being adhered too as well. All guns were serial numbered and they knew exactly (out of the legally owned ones) who had handed in and who had not from records. Everyone that I knew from that club handed in every single weapon and piece of ammunition. Instances of people getting caught with a gun that they previously owned legally are going to be extremely rare.

So that just brings us straight back to the smuggled guns used in "securing" the drugs trade in the country. Just because a shot has not been fired does not make it "not a crime". Even before the ban gun crime included waving one in someones face. Armed robbery was still armed robbery whether you discharged your weapon or not.

How about I add another one.

Idiots who don't know what a gun is designed for.

That's nice. Can you rehash that tired argument some more? We haven't heard it and debunked it a dozen times already.

Idiots who think there's no other way to kill people.

Shooting someone is one of the easier ways to kill someone. I like the idea of making it harder for people to kill each other.

Idiots who think that banning them will allow the government to find and destroy all of them, thus preventing gun-related crime.
Not necessarily all, but some.


Idiots who think collectivism is morally justifiable, and realize that the existence of guns is not conducive to the imposition of collectivism.
The fuck? How is the idea of a society working together anti-gun? Organising a local gun militia could be seen as a form of collectivism.


Idiots who think that people should never be allowed to run their own lives. This includes, communists, fascists, statists, authoritarians, people who enjoy power for power's sake and people who object to people being their own bosses.
So you don't think anything should be banned?

That's nice. Can you rehash that tired argument some more? We haven't heard it and debunked it a dozen times already.

Can't see how it is tired when true. Any debunking you may think you've made is simply excusing the guns existance. All the vast majority of guns are are people coming up with new and better ways to kill other people. There is no getting around that.

Early posts confirm a new addition to the list of anti-gun mentalities.

Prior to this the list of categories of people likely to oppose private gun ownership include:

Idiots who think there's no other way to kill people.
Idiots who think guns have a mind of their own
Idiots who think that banning them will allow the government to find and destroy all of them, thus preventing gun-related crime.
Idiots who think that God and government are one and the same, so resisting the government is a mortal sin.
Idiots who think the universe is run by majority rule.
Idiots who think collectivism is morally justifiable, and realize that the existence of guns is not conducive to the imposition of collectivism.
Idiots who object to people protecting themselves from criminals.

The new one is:

Idiots who think that people should never be allowed to run their own lives. This includes, communists, fascists, statists, authoritarians, people who enjoy power for power's sake and people who object to people being their own bosses.

Now I issue two challenges. To kindred spirits: continue adding to the list. To opponents: Prove me wrong.

firstly yes i am anti gun. it may be because i am a product of my happy UK lifestyle.
secondly i am not any one of those idiot types mentioned above. in fact i agree that these people do exist, do make up a large percentige of anti gun people, and that they are for the most part naive and blinkered.

no sane anti gun person could argue with your point, what youve done is the first rule of winning arguments; youve made a point that no one can say is wrong. this doea not mean though that you are in any way right.

Can't see how it is tired when true. Any debunking you may think you've made is simply excusing the guns existance. All the vast majority of guns are are people coming up with new and better ways to kill other people. There is no getting around that.

Round and round. Not true. Already shown you before several times. Try again..

if you think guns are rubbish you don`t deserve the freedom you have. 231 years ago, one of my ancestors joined his countrymen in a rebellion against a tyrant 3000 miles away, you may know him as England`s King George. after victory was secured these newly free people wrote one of the most important documents in the world, the constitution of the United States. in this document it states " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". why, because these men sought to keep their newfound freedom and knowing that governments will become corrupt put in the ultimate check and balance to the system. if the government became tyrannical they had the means to remove it. not to mention that these founding fathers lived in a largely remote country. fast-forward a couple hundred years and we are seeing the very types of governments these men tried to prevent. the problem is not that this gun is bad and this one is good or no one should have guns, frankly if the people cannot be armed neither should the government, the problem is that there are elements of society than do not and will not show any kind of respect for other people or others property and the police are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it. then the legal system is so screwed up that if someone breaks into your home and injures themselves while robbing you, they can sue you because of your negligence they are injured and no longer able to support themselves. it is not up to anyone to protect you, your family, your property or your freedom but you! if asked if i would give up my firearms my response echoes that of Charlton Heston "from my cold, dead hands!" Aschenhyrst-Life Member, National Rile Association. proud desendant of Capt. W.T. Long, 2nd Virginia Militia-War of American Independence

one of my ancestors joined his countrymen in a rebellion against a tyrant 3000 miles away, you may know him as England`s King George
George III wasn't a tyrant, he was mad. He probably thought the American Colonies were a pickle sandwich.

Round and round. Not true. Already shown you before several times. Try again..

We will go round and round I suppose. I will keep saying it until you realize it. Guns are made to kill people. I will repeat it as many times as necessary.

Guns aren't rubbish. They're very useful tools for killing people, or at least injuring them badly enough not to want to bother you any more.

I don't own any myself, but a good deal of people around here do, primarily in order to protect themselves from youth gangs and/or as relics of their ancestors' service in the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, or the French and Indian War, or just about any other war in the history of the US. Personally, I'd rather buy and use a tazer or other nonlethal weapon, as it incapacitates the evildoer without actually giving the justice system anything to reel me in for; but that's just me, some people like guns, and I don't particularly mind that. (As long as they don't shoot me.)

George III wasn't a tyrant, he was mad. He probably thought the American Colonies were a pickle sandwich.

He wasn't techincally mad either, he most likely suffered from a condition called Porphyria. He was quite lucid when he was not suffering an attack from what I recall of my history.

if you think guns are rubbish you don`t deserve the freedom you have. 231 years ago, one of my ancestors joined his countrymen in a rebellion against a tyrant 3000 miles away, you may know him as England`s King George. after victory was secured these newly free people wrote one of the most important documents in the world, the constitution of the United States. in this document it states " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". why, because these men sought to keep their newfound freedom and knowing that governments will become corrupt put in the ultimate check and balance to the system. if the government became tyrannical they had the means to remove it. not to mention that these founding fathers lived in a largely remote country. fast-forward a couple hundred years and we are seeing the very types of governments these men tried to prevent. the problem is not that this gun is bad and this one is good or no one should have guns, frankly if the people cannot be armed neither should the government, the problem is that there are elements of society than do not and will not show any kind of respect for other people or others property and the police are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it. then the legal system is so screwed up that if someone breaks into your home and injures themselves while robbing you, they can sue you because of your negligence they are injured and no longer able to support themselves. it is not up to anyone to protect you, your family, your property or your freedom but you! if asked if i would give up my firearms my response echoes that of Charlton Heston "from my cold, dead hands!" Aschenhyrst-Life Member, National Rile Association. proud desendant of Capt. W.T. Long, 2nd Virginia Militia-War of American Independence


ok im afraid i might have to piss you off a bit here.
a/ ever since the english civil war no king has had the right to be a dictator. they handed most of their power over to parliament and only really act as a failsafe against a dictatoral primeminister.
b/ just because something was a good idea 231 years ago doesnt mean that it still is. for example it was only 200 years ago the first nation banned slavery. ( and that was the fascist Brits)

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

Here in California where assault rifles are illegal, i happen to know several people who can get me one (I know even more who actually have them). So, whenever someone says that banning guns will stop crime, I have to take a few seconds to laugh. "Make guns illegal, crime will stop" is nothing more than a joke. (Also for those who care to know, it is relatively easy to convert a semi into an automatic weapon.)

the point is not whether or not something that worked in the past still applies today, the point is that YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for your safety and liberty. if you want to do nothing and hope someone else will protect you, that is your right. if someone thinks that a taser or pepper spray is what they need, so be it. but do not infringe upon my right to protect me and my loved ones. i have chose to meet lethal force with lethal force. i am a responsible gun owner. i am teaching my children to be responsible with guns so someday they too have the choice on how to protect what is theirs. i`m just sick of the people who want to do away with my "legal" guns because they think that will stop crime. take the members of society that are the problem and take them out of out of the picture. murders should never be allowed to be free once convicted(i think let the punishment fit the crime, but thats a different issue). child molesters and rapists have no business walking amongst us. the drug dealers and gang-bangers who are the biggest scourge on society should be locked up so far back in the prison that daylight would have to be piped to them. do you understand, CRIMINALS are the problem, not guns or the people who lawfully own them.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity, as Freud said.

Hoplophobia aside, pandora's box is open and guns arent going anywhere.

At any rate, people never had much trouble hacking eachother apart with swords and impaling eachother on spears and arrows.

If anything, guns have at least made all people more or less equal in their ability to defend themselves.

An eighty year old hunched-over grandma can shoot a 200-lb mugger to death without much trouble, a 120-lb would-be rape victim can do the same, and a 160lb gay man walking at night can defend himself easily from any number of drunken idiots with bats or tire irons.

All thanks to guns :)

We will go round and round I suppose. I will keep saying it until you realize it. Guns are made to kill people. I will repeat it as many times as necessary.

The gun was invented to kill people and its primary use has not changed. The question is more like "would the world be better without them?" I have to say no because wars were waged before guns, crime existed before guns, so I am hesitant to blame the world's problems (which largely have existed long before guns) on guns.

The gun was invented to kill people and its primary use has not changed. The question is more like "would the world be better without them?" I have to say no because wars were waged before guns, crime existed before guns, so I am hesitant to blame the world's problems (which largely have existed long before guns) on guns.

I fully realize that without firearms humans would be killing each other and fighting wars with other weapons. There is no denying that (though I do believe the crime rate would be lower). I just wish gun manufacturers would care in the slightest where their products go. But that is asking for too much I suppose.

As you see from what I was responding to though, some would say that a gun is not meant to kill people. Which is just stupid.

We will go round and round I suppose. I will keep saying it until you realize it. Guns are made to kill people. I will repeat it as many times as necessary.

So you want me to realize an untruth? Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it any more true.

Guns do no good to society, but once the criminals all have them you would be foolish to ban them. In the UK we must at least slow down the inevitable arms race of criminals and non criminals. Personally, to defend myself I use my ability to run like hell, something a gun could stop you from doing, and to defend my home there's all kinds of frying pans and knives it would be easy to lethally wound with.

I fully realize that without firearms humans would be killing each other and fighting wars with other weapons. There is no denying that (though I do believe the crime rate would be lower). I just wish gun manufacturers would care in the slightest where their products go. But that is asking for too much I suppose.

As you see from what I was responding to though, some would say that a gun is not meant to kill people. Which is just stupid.

You claim a statement is "stupid" after making a stupid statement yourself. How cute.

Here in California where assault rifles are illegal, i happen to know several people who can get me one (I know even more who actually have them). So, whenever someone says that banning guns will stop crime, I have to take a few seconds to laugh. "Make guns illegal, crime will stop" is nothing more than a joke. (Also for those who care to know, it is relatively easy to convert a semi into an automatic weapon.)
i am truly sorry for what has happened to law-abiding citizens in the People`s Republic of California, i have a similar problem here in the Land of Lincoln. there are not enough people downstate to out-voted Chicago and now we are fighting their failed agenda. your ban is on the so-called assault weapons, semi-auto look-alikes not full-auto true "assault weapons" which are very hard to aquire because of the red tape. btw: most semi-autos that are converted are 1) not always easy 2) work in slam-fire, not true auto and 3) ILLEGAL-its a federal felony to even attempt to convert a semi-auto into a full-auto weapon aka "assault rifle".

I fully realize that without firearms humans would be killing each other and fighting wars with other weapons. There is no denying that (though I do believe the crime rate would be lower). I just wish gun manufacturers would care in the slightest where their products go. But that is asking for too much I suppose.

Yes and no. Most of the assault rifles I have seen are ak-47's. Some gun manufacturers may care but most of those weapons are from foreign nations that the government (U.S.S.R., china) sponsored the production of said weapons.

Apply that argument to drugs works just as well. Shall we legalise them as well?

I wouldnt mind.

i am truly sorry for what has happened to law-abiding citizens in the People`s Republic of California, i have a similar problem here in the Land of Lincoln. there are not enough people downstate to out-voted Chicago and now we are fighting their failed agenda. your ban is on the so-called assault weapons, semi-auto look-alikes not full-auto true "assault weapons" which are very hard to aquire because of the red tape. btw: most semi-autos that are converted are 1) not always easy 2) work in slam-fire, not true auto and 3) ILLEGAL-its a federal felony to even attempt to convert a semi-auto into a full-auto weapon aka "assault rifle".

Where are you in the People's Soviet of Illinois?

So you want me to realize an untruth? Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it any more true.

Well, some guns are made to kill people, some aren't.

Semi automatic hanguns are all designed to kill people, as are revolvers generally.

Most semi automatic rifles are designed to kill people too.

Some rifles though and some pistols are designed to kill animals, and aren't nearly as practical for killing people as the purpose-designed ones.

At the end of the day though, one has to ask: So what? Weapons have been designed from the dawn of history to kill people, why is there anything wrong with this? Sometimes it is necessary to kill people.

You claim a statement is "stupid" after making a stupid statement yourself. How cute.

Oh, fuck off. And you know, I still haven't heard this supposed glorious arguement about how guns aren't really meant to kill people.

Yes and no. Most of the assault rifles I have seen are ak-47's. Some gun manufacturers may care but most of those weapons are from foreign nations that the government (U.S.S.R., china) sponsored the production of said weapons.

Far as I'm concerned the arms industry is just there to make a buck. Of course you could say the same for about any corporation but not just any corporation makes a product specifically designed to kill. Because of that, who cares if some weapons end up in the hands of those who really shouldn't ever have any. As long as you make a profit.

Oh, fuck off. And you know, I still haven't heard this supposed glorious arguement about how guns aren't really meant to kill people.

Such language.

Like NG said, some are, some aren't. Your blanket statements about the Ebil firearms and their makers just show how willfully ignorant you keep yourself.

Here in California where assault rifles are illegal, i happen to know several people who can get me one (I know even more who actually have them). So, whenever someone says that banning guns will stop crime, I have to take a few seconds to laugh. "Make guns illegal, crime will stop" is nothing more than a joke. (Also for those who care to know, it is relatively easy to convert a semi into an automatic weapon.)

Where are you in the People's Soviet of Illinois?

occupied illinois- 200 miles south of the people`s republic of chicago

:headbang: "what we have here is failure to communicate. some men you just can`t reach.":headbang:

Since not every gun is 'designed to kill people,' but every gun is capable of killing people, it doesn't make much sense to just ban the guns that are 'designed to kill people.'

Cars are capable of killing people, and do so at a rate astronomically higher than do guns, yet are not banned.

Such language.

Like NG said, some are, some aren't. Your blanket statements about the Ebil firearms and their makers just show how willfully ignorant you keep yourself.

Some? You do mean the vast majority don't you? The industry is based heavily on military grade weapons, handguns etc. All of which are meant to be fired at other humans. Saying that only "some" are meant to be used this way is simple willful ignorance or simply having such a love for the things that you would say anything.

occupied illinois- 200 miles south of the people`s republic of chicago

Not to far from Charleston then.

Here in California where assault rifles are illegal, i happen to know several people who can get me one (I know even more who actually have them). So, whenever someone says that banning guns will stop crime, I have to take a few seconds to laugh. "Make guns illegal, crime will stop" is nothing more than a joke. (Also for those who care to know, it is relatively easy to convert a semi into an automatic weapon.)

Here in Aus, the Federal government basically banned handguns (despite having no authority over the issue - they bullied the states into handing over their powers). This has had basically no effect at all on crime rates; slight rise here, slight drop there, no change overall.

Thing is, I know a guy who can turn out a replic Ingram MAC-10 in his backyard metalshop. Another guy has told me he can get anything from pistols to Assault Rifles for me if I ever have the need. Being the law-abiding guy I am, I haven't taken him up on it, but I don't think it was an idle boast.

As far as I can see, these gun bans and restrictions are just pointless. They don't do any good at all.

(though I do believe the crime rate would be lower).

It should be noted that the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates.

(Can't find any single site you will have to google gun laws and safest states and compare)

Some? You do mean the vast majority don't you? The industry is based heavily on military grade weapons, handguns etc. All of which are meant to be fired at other humans. Saying that only "some" are meant to be used this way is simple willful ignorance or simply having such a love for the things that you would say anything.


Really? Most of the manufactureres in the US are based on hunting, plinking, sport shooting etc.

Making crap up for your argument won't make it any stronger you know.

Some? You do mean the vast majority don't you? The industry is based heavily on military grade weapons, handguns etc. All of which are meant to be fired at other humans. Saying that only "some" are meant to be used this way is simple willful ignorance or simply having such a love for the things that you would say anything.

No, "some" is literally, specifically accurate.

Some guns are designed to kill people. Handguns mostly. Some guns aren't - rifles and shotguns mostly. There are a lot of wal-marts in the country that sell a lot of guns, few if any "designed to kill people."

I suppose this vast ammount can't possibly be expressed as "some." :rolleyes:

You don't do yourself any favors by making factual errors about his use of language.

"Some" is not "simple willful ignorance," it is a clear expression of the actual fact of the matter. Get a grip.

It should be noted that the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates.

(Can't find any single site you will have to google gun laws and safest states and compare)

I have heard this before and am willing to believe that some criminals would be hesitant to burglarize a home if they were worried the resident might be armed as well. But the scenario we were talking about was one where guns didn't even exist. Since squeezing the trigger is much easier than striking or stabbing someone I would believe in this case crime would be lower.

the point is not whether or not something that worked in the past still applies today, the point is that YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for your safety and liberty. if you want to do nothing and hope someone else will protect you, that is your right. if someone thinks that a taser or pepper spray is what they need, so be it. but do not infringe upon my right to protect me and my loved ones. i have chose to meet lethal force with lethal force. i am a responsible gun owner. i am teaching my children to be responsible with guns so someday they too have the choice on how to protect what is theirs. i`m just sick of the people who want to do away with my "legal" guns because they think that will stop crime. take the members of society that are the problem and take them out of out of the picture. murders should never be allowed to be free once convicted(i think let the punishment fit the crime, but thats a different issue). child molesters and rapists have no business walking amongst us. the drug dealers and gang-bangers who are the biggest scourge on society should be locked up so far back in the prison that daylight would have to be piped to them. do you understand, CRIMINALS are the problem, not guns or the people who lawfully own them.

ok firstly im not attacking your right to defend your loved ones, though i dont think wed agree on much politics.
the point is that in countries were guns are illegal there are less guns. less people ( criminals included) have guns and less people get shot.

No, "some" is literally, specifically accurate.

Some guns are designed to kill people. Handguns mostly. Some guns aren't - rifles and shotguns mostly. There are a lot of wal-marts in the country that sell a lot of guns, few if any "designed to kill people."

I suppose this vast ammount can't possibly be expressed as "some." :rolleyes:

You don't do yourself any favors by making factual errors about his use of language.

"Some" is not "simple willful ignorance," it is a clear expression of the actual fact of the matter. Get a grip.

You are right here. Nither rifles or shotguns are very effective (as compared to handguns, and battle or assault rifles.) in killing people.
If you have ever handled a rifle or shotgun you know that they would be rather inconvinent in crime. (or combat whichever the case may be.)

I have heard this before and am willing to believe that some criminals would be hesitant to burglarize a home if they were worried the resident might be armed as well. But the scenario we were talking about was one where guns didn't even exist. Since squeezing the trigger is much easier than striking or stabbing someone I would believe in this case crime would be lower.

The only weapon that I would feel safe with if someone were to come into my house with a big axe or a hammer is a gun.

http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=6270075&nav=menu63_2

"Police say that a Hamilton man who was involved in a deadly shooting was attempting to stop an intruder from robbing him.

Hamilton Police Detective Commander Lt. Scott Scrimizzi said that Jamie Buck who lived in the home at 971 Bishop Avenue, was defending himself from 31 year old Millard Brandenburg of Hamilton who, police say was attacking Buck with a sledgehammer.
"

This scumbag didnt need a gun to break into the house, he had a sledgehammer.

If the owner hadn't had a gun, he would have a caved-in head.

Really? Most of the manufactureres in the US are based on hunting, plinking, sport shooting etc.

Making crap up for your argument won't make it any stronger you know.

You know I wasn't specifically meaning simply the U.S. manufacturers. Given the large amounts of guns in the hands of military, militias, rebels, private citizens, gangs, etc., etc in the world, I am not going to believe that the majority of guns are meant for simply targeting animals and targets. Even if it were not true which I am going to for the sake of argument believe, the gun by its nature is still meant to kill and the main target of that will always be other humans.

ok firstly im not attacking your right to defend your loved ones, though i dont think wed agree on much politics.
the point is that in countries were guns are illegal there are less guns. less people ( criminals included) have guns and less people get shot.

You are proposing a link that just isn't there. Switzerland has more guns in more households than any equivalent-sized US state - and a violent crime rate so low it's hard to believe.

Crime and murder rates are primarily culture and sociality related. Gun availability doesn't even seem to be a factor.

You know I wasn't specifically meaning simply the U.S. manufacturers. Given the large amounts of guns in the hands of military, militias, rebels, private citizens, gangs, etc., etc in the world, I am not going to believe that the majority of guns are meant for simply targeting animals and targets. Even if it were not true which I am going to for the sake of argument believe, the gun by its nature is still meant to kill and the main target of that will always be other humans.

The vast majority of weapons in the world are used to kill.

Think of the question this way would hitler have killed the jews if there were no guns? What about statlin, or the tutsis and hutus? Granted, if guns were not invented history would have taken a different course, but does war, crime and hate stem only from guns? I think not.

You are proposing a link that just isn't there. Switzerland has more guns in more households than any equivalent-sized US state - and a violent crime rate so low it's hard to believe.

Crime and murder rates are primarily culture and sociality related. Gun availability doesn't even seem to be a factor.

Indeed, in Canada, guns are so easily available for purchase, yet the gun crime rate is much lower, even just across the border from the USA, it is very low indeed, as highlighted by Micheal Moore's documentary, Bowling for Coluombine.

You know I wasn't specifically meaning simply the U.S. manufacturers. Given the large amounts of guns in the hands of military, militias, rebels, private citizens, gangs, etc., etc in the world, I am not going to believe that the majority of guns are meant for simply targeting animals and targets. Even if it were not true which I am going to for the sake of argument believe, the gun by its nature is still meant to kill and the main target of that will always be other humans.

You can keep saying that. It doesn't make it true. About 50% of civilian firearm ownership is in the US according to IANSA and AA. The "main targets" are not other humans. Many of the non-US manufacturers are either gov't run or still have heavy focus on the civilian market.

Yes, guns are made to kill people.

They're made to kill bad people, like rapists.

That's why guns are good, and why stricter gun laws are universally associated with higher violent crime rates.

Also, drugs should be legalized. Prohibition just leads to more violence and organized crime without actually reducing drug-use.

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

LMAO, so if they were never invented maybe?

they were invented and theres nothing you can do about that. and if its not guns there would be other means of killing people and the arguement would shift to just trying to ban/control what other means of killing replaces guns.

But the scenario we were talking about was one where guns didn't even exist.

Since when...And for that matter, why? We may as well talk of a scenario where everyone has personal bullet-proof shielding from birth.

Since when...And for that matter, why? We may as well talk of a scenario where everyone has personal bullet-proof shielding from birth.

Hmmm... splice some turtle DNA into humans, perhaps?

Guns are dangerous. Thus they should be restricted so that only those who can use them safely are allowed to. Much like explosives, or cars.

Guns are dangerous. Thus they should be restricted so that only those who can use them safely are allowed to. Much like explosives, or cars.

And who gets to decide whether or not I can use a gun safely? Big Brother?

And who gets to decide whether or not I can use a gun safely? Big Brother?

Yes. An Orwellian Universe gets to decide if you can safely handle a gun.

The legislation I would most like to see would be a method where anyone without a criminal record or a mental condition could go, get trained, and be given a handgun, all for free! It would be like a one week course or something.

Guns are dangerous. Thus they should be restricted so that only those who can use them safely are allowed to. Much like explosives, or cars.

Explosives are a whole different catagory. Cars can be purchased and used on private property w/o a license or registration .

Would you accept the same for firearms?

I think (and I'm really not joking) that you should have your head examined if you want to own a gun. Like, literally examined by a licensed psychologist.

I think (and I'm really not joking) that you should have your head examined if you want to own a gun. Like, literally examined by a licensed psychologist.

Why?

Why?

Wouldn't that be nice? Then only sane people will have guns.

Wouldn't that be nice? Then only sane people will have guns.

You put that much trust in the psychiatric community? The same people who endorsed "repressed memories" until they started getting sued?

I think (and I'm really not joking) that you should have your head examined if you want to own a gun. Like, literally examined by a licensed psychologist.

Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity, quoth Sigmund Freud.

I think you need to get your head examined, like, literally examined by a licensed psychologist.

Hoplophobia is a nasty derangement.

Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity, quoth Sigmund Freud.

I think you need to get your head examined, like, literally examined by a licensed psychologist.

Hoplophobia is a nasty derangement.

I'm not afraid of guns. I've noticed that it is fear which drives most people into ownership. Not all but most.

You put that much trust in the psychiatric community? The same people who endorsed "repressed memories" until they started getting sued?

If it means a couple of insane guys don't get to have a gun, then yeah. I'm for it. Not saying that the psychiatric community wouldn't misdiagnose people and some truly sane people will be pistolless and some truly insane people will be pistolful.

If it means a couple of insane guys don't get to have a gun, then yeah. I'm for it. Not saying that the psychiatric community wouldn't misdiagnose people and some truly sane people will be pistolless and some truly insane people will be pistolful.

So you're saying it really won't make that much difference but create an even bigger beaurocratic hassle.

I'm not afraid of guns. I've noticed that it is fear which drives most people into ownership. Not all but most.

Most I know own firearms got started because they enjoyed them.

So you're saying it really won't make that much difference but create an even bigger beaurocratic hassle.

I don't know. It's never been tried before. But I'm all for making it a hassle to get a gun.

Not to far from Charleston then.

about 50 miles east, smack dab in the middle of the state.:sniper:

I don't know. It's never been tried before. But I'm all for making it a hassle to get a gun.

I'm opposed to that.

Most I know own firearms got started because they enjoyed them.

K.

damn you beet me to it!

*beat

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

Not true. It's not that complicated to manufacture a firearm. Philip Luty (a british citizen) wrote a book about making an improvised open bolt sub-machine-gun, with common tools and readily available materials. Ammunition can similarly be home manufactured.

So outlawing guns does not necessarily equal no guns.

about 50 miles east, smack dab in the middle of the state.:sniper:

So Shelbyville area. I live in between Charleston & Ashmore.

ok firstly im not attacking your right to defend your loved ones, though i dont think wed agree on much politics.
the point is that in countries were guns are illegal there are less guns. less people ( criminals included) have guns and less people get shot.

criminals will get their guns whether or not they are outlawed, if they are already violating one law what difference does another make. all gun control does is affect the law-abiding citizen.

I'm opposed to that.

I kinda figured. I understand that in the US it is protected to have a gun. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be crazy when you have one, shouldn't have a criminal record and it should be a hassle to get one. Probably, it will all result in something between our two views and I wouldn't be surprised if it favored your side of the issue.

I don't know. It's never been tried before. But I'm all for making it a hassle to get a gun.

Buying a gun on the streets will never be a hassle, no matter how many laws you pass. How do you think those Columbine kids got their weapons?

So Shelbyville area. I live in between Charleston & Ashmore.i`m between decatur and pana

I kinda figured. I understand that in the US it is protected to have a gun. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be crazy when you have one, shouldn't have a criminal record and it should be a hassle to get one. Probably, it will all result in something between our two views and I wouldn't be surprised if it favored your side of the issue.

No violent criminal record. Agreed. I don't care about speeding tickets, underage drinking, etc.

Not crazy. Agreed. There's already a federal law that if you've been involuntarily committed, it's a no-go.

Hassle, No. reasonable regulation (ie non hassle background check, safety classes) OK.

i`m between decatur and pana

Damn, I went the wrong way. You're not that far from me.

Buying a gun on the streets will never be a hassle, no matter how many laws you pass. How do you think those Columbine kids got their weapons?

Through a straw purchase.

Simmoa , you`re right we wouldn`t agree on politics or probably much else. i`m a right-wing conservative republican redneck and damn proud of it!

Through a straw purchase.

Which is illegal.

No violent criminal record. Agreed. I don't care about speeding tickets, underage drinking, etc.

Not crazy. Agreed. There's already a federal law that if you've been involuntarily committed, it's a no-go.

Hassle, No. reasonable regulation (ie non hassle background check, safety classes) OK.

Yeah, when I'm Emperor of the World things will be a bit more unfair to gun owners than that but that is not going to happen, so you're safe.

that got you lookin didnt it?

am i the only person in the world that believes guns are a big peice of shit, i know the old saying that a gun isnt evil that the person is, but guns make it a bit too easy for people to be massive pricks. take a look at Manchester; its always had its problems but now the illegal gun trade is turning it into a ghetto. shame too, Manchesters a cool place.

i know that guns have there place and a lot of people will come up with a lot of reasons why im a fag, but seriously guns are responsible for a lot of avoidable misery.

Discuss.

guns protect us from other guns.
and if they had no guns, it means we controle them.
(gun beats knife. good gun beats crap gun.)

Yeah, when I'm Emperor of the World things will be a bit more unfair to gun owners than that but that is not going to happen, so you're safe.

after i lead the revolution and depose you, anti-gunners will be an extinct species. but then again you`re not world emperor either.

Yeah, when I'm Emperor of the World things will be a bit more unfair to gun owners than that but that is not going to happen, so you're safe.

Because I own a gun. ;)

There's already a federal law that if you've been involuntarily committed, it's a no-go.

That would be the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Yeah, when I'm Emperor of the World things will be a bit more unfair to gun owners than that but that is not going to happen, so you're safe.

Crowns arent bulletproof :)

Because I own a gun. ;)
because i own more than one and know how to use them all. "never mind the dog, beware of owner"

Kecibukia, you`re in a mostly rural area too. if shit hit the fan there, which would do you more good, dial 911 or handle it yourself?

Kecibukia, you`re in a mostly rural area too. if shit hit the fan there, which would do you more good, dial 911 or handle it yourself?

Handle it myself while me or the wife is dialing 911 then a lawyer.

here in good ole Christian County (where nobody has ever been CONVICTED of murder) it would take 30-45 minutes for the sheriff`s department to show up. in addition to that, it`s 30 miles to the nearest hospital that`s not a band-aid station. the policy around these parts is handle it yourself and call them for clean-up.

how about some of you on the anti-gun side, how good are your options if shit hit the fan?

Here in California where assault rifles are illegal, i happen to know several people who can get me one (I know even more who actually have them). So, whenever someone says that banning guns will stop crime, I have to take a few seconds to laugh. "Make guns illegal, crime will stop" is nothing more than a joke. (Also for those who care to know, it is relatively easy to convert a semi into an automatic weapon.)


With my AR-15, not only would I need to machine part of my lower reciever (my reciever is a high shelf reciever, whereas an M-16 would be a low shelf reciever), but I would need the select fire trigger parts. Since I have neither the select fire parts, a milling machine, or the skill to operate the milling machine correctly, it'd be extrememly difficult for my AR-15 to be converted.

With my AR-15, not only would I need to machine part of my lower reciever (my reciever is a high shelf reciever, whereas an M-16 would be a low shelf reciever), but I would need the select fire trigger parts. Since I have neither the select fire parts, a milling machine, or the skill to operate the milling machine correctly, it'd be extrememly difficult for my AR-15 to be converted.

There's ways to convert a semi-AK into fully auto as well. All of them involve modifying the reciever so it's blatantly obvious it's been done. It's also more likely the rifle will explode than work effectively for any amount of time w/ most of the methods.

....I just wish gun manufacturers would care ....


Hey! I do care.






































:D

I'm not afraid of guns. I've noticed that it is fear which drives most people into ownership. Not all but most. fear is not got me into this, tradition is. fear of ignorance is what keeps me involved.

There's ways to convert a semi-AK into fully auto as well. All of them involve modifying the reciever so it's blatantly obvious it's been done. It's also more likely the rifle will explode than work effectively for any amount of time w/ most of the methods.

the only gun i know of that is easy to convert is the M-1 Carbine because over 90% of the part interchange w/ the full-auto M-2 carbine. parts are available and good old Uncle Sam put out the manual years ago, now it`s in the public domain. it wouldn`t be my first choice.

With my AR-15, not only would I need to machine part of my lower reciever (my reciever is a high shelf reciever, whereas an M-16 would be a low shelf reciever), but I would need the select fire trigger parts. Since I have neither the select fire parts, a milling machine, or the skill to operate the milling machine correctly, it'd be extrememly difficult for my AR-15 to be converted.

To be fully honest, it isnt hard to convert many semi-auto weapons (pistols especially) into full-auto weapons..... just not select fire weapons.

Taking a file to certain parts of the sere/hammer &c can foul the gun up so that racking the slide will result in all the rounds being fired. It isnt safe and it isnt practical, but it is possible and "full auto."

Illegal of course, so don't do it. You'll kill yourself / someone else / ruin the gun.

I'm not afraid of guns. I've noticed that it is fear which drives most people into ownership. Not all but most.


Fear drove me to purchase my AR-15. That's because I fear that if I don't have a semi-auto rifle, eventually the paper targets will take over, and enslave us all. Then, they'll be the ones shooting us! :eek:





















:D

Crowns arent bulletproof :)

But my platinum coated attack monkeys are. They are also wise in the way of the ninja. How can you shoot at a platinum coated attack monkey if you cannot see the platinum coated attack monkey?

But my platinum coated attack monkeys are. They are also wise in the way of the ninja. How can you shoot at a platinum coated attack monkey if you cannot see the platinum coated attack monkey?

W/ a PCAM seeking poodle gun of course.

To be fully honest, it isnt hard to convert many semi-auto weapons (pistols especially) into full-auto weapons..... just not select fire weapons.

Taking a file to certain parts of the sere/hammer &c can foul the gun up so that racking the slide will result in all the rounds being fired. It isnt safe and it isnt practical, but it is possible and "full auto."

Illegal of course, so don't do it. You'll kill yourself / someone else / ruin the gun. what you are describing is slam-fire not true full-auto select fire.

what you are describing is slam-fire not true full-auto select fire.

For the uninitiated, it's the same thing. Up until it goes BANG in directions it's not intended.

But my platinum coated attack monkeys are. They are also wise in the way of the ninja. How can you shoot at a platinum coated attack monkey if you cannot see the platinum coated attack monkey? bananas laced w/ anti-freeze should do the trick.

W/ a PCAM seeking poodle gun of course.

I... don't know what that is. But I'm readying my psychokinetic lobsters. I can't tell you what they do but I can tell you that it will be highly unpleasant and that it does involve a certain sex act which only appeals to the most richly depraved of society.

I... don't know what that is. But I'm readying my psychokinetic lobsters. I can't tell you what they do but I can tell you that it will be highly unpleasant and that it does involve a certain sex act which only appeals to the most richly depraved of society.

Hmmm... You doing anything Saturday? :fluffle:


Edit: Look under "Poodle Girl"
http://home.jps.net/~lsnyder/18_tick.html

For the uninitiated, it's the same thing. Up until it goes BANG in directions it's not intended. also to the uninitiated, refer to the old adage " my face may be ugly, but it`s the only face i`ve got".

I... don't know what that is. But I'm readying my psychokinetic lobsters. I can't tell you what they do but I can tell you that it will be highly unpleasant and that it does involve a certain sex act which only appeals to the most richly depraved of society.

Psychokinetic lobsters? Hmm, sounds like sneaking up behind them with a pot of boiling water should take care of them.

But my platinum coated attack monkeys are. They are also wise in the way of the ninja. How can you shoot at a platinum coated attack monkey if you cannot see the platinum coated attack monkey?

With a platinum coated attack monkey-seeking missile, of course.

bananas laced w/ anti-freeze should do the trick.nana

My monkeys only drink the blood of aged men with liver problems. An unforseen by-product of their training regimen.

I... don't know what that is. But I'm readying my psychokinetic lobsters. I can't tell you what they do but I can tell you that it will be highly unpleasant and that it does involve a certain sex act which only appeals to the most richly depraved of society.

bring`em. i like gumbo.

My monkeys only drink the blood of aged men with liver problems. An unforseen by-product of their training regimen.


Ahh. I'll use my Father-In-Law as a diversion then just plink them off w/ poodles as they feed.

My monkeys only drink the blood of aged men with liver problems. An unforseen by-product of their training regimen. my liver is fine. just tested it out last night.:p i`m good for another 1000 gallons.

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, ANY government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is absurd.

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, ANY government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is absurd.

*stores up nuclear weapons*

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever become necessary, ANY government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is absurd.
welcome pro-gun friend. we`re busy hunting ninja monkeys, pervert lobsters and other crap like that. join the fun.

*stores up nuclear weapons* have you any a-bombs for sale. mine are passed the use by date.

And who gets to decide whether or not I can use a gun safely? Big Brother?
Yes.
Explosives are a whole different catagory. Cars can be purchased and used on private property w/o a license or registration .

Would you accept the same for firearms?

No. Bullets are a lot harder to keep on your property than cares, especially if it's some kind of emergency that has you firing them in the first place. I'm no doctor, nor have I any experience with guns, but I can't see a whole load of adrenaline helping with your aim.

welcome pro-gun friend. we`re busy hunting ninja monkeys, pervert lobsters and other crap like that. join the fun.

Leave the lobsters alone. We have plans.

Yes.


No. Bullets are a lot harder to keep on your property than cares, especially if it's some kind of emergency that has you firing them in the first place. I'm no doctor, nor have I any experience with guns, but I can't see a whole load of adrenaline helping with your aim. the adrenaline rush is overcome for us mere "civilians" the same way it is overcome for police and military. PRACTICE-PRACTICE-PRACTICE.

Yes.


No. Bullets are a lot harder to keep on your property than cares, especially if it's some kind of emergency that has you firing them in the first place. I'm no doctor, nor have I any experience with guns, but I can't see a whole load of adrenaline helping with your aim.

Depends on the bullet and the property. W/ practice. adrenaline can improve aim.

Leave the lobsters alone. We have plans.Jambalya?

have you any a-bombs for sale. mine are passed the use by date.

Not for sale. I'm buying and waiting for a market rise.

Not for sale. I'm buying and waiting for a market rise.i understand. besides i need to work on my backyard missile silo anyways.

http://home.graffiti.net/SLDFKnight/1171241940237.jpg

huh whut?

i understand. besides i need to work on my backyard missle silo anyways.

Give me a call. We own a backhoe.

Give me a call. We own a backhoe.

thanks but i`m earning my PHD, that`s Post Hole Digger for the uninitiated.;)

The vast majority of weapons in the world are used to kill.

Think of the question this way would hitler have killed the jews if there were no guns? What about statlin, or the tutsis and hutus? Granted, if guns were not invented history would have taken a different course, but does war, crime and hate stem only from guns? I think not.

Those are all horrible examples. Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people by other methods than guns. Gas chambers, cremation, abhorrent medical testing, starvation, exhaustion, etc. The fact that these people were able to be rounded up like sheep to the slaughter was, in fact, because they were disarmed. Not to sure about the Soviets during Stalin though, they may have been allowed gun, but I doubt it since Stalin was a dictator and paranoid as all hell. As for the Tutsis/Hutu example that one was the worst of all. Most of those people were killed with machetes and hacked to death than were shot.

Otherwise I agree with everything else. History would be different from we know it but the violence would not, in my opinion

thanks but i`m earning my PHD, that`s Post Hole Digger for the uninitiated.;)

Been there, done that. Prefer my fully-auto BH.

So you don't think anything should be banned?

No, I think that the group of people I mentioned would oppose devices which ensure that the people who own and carry them can run their own lives.

http://home.graffiti.net/SLDFKnight/1171241940237.jpg

huh whut?nice, i like the one that says "gun control works, ask the experts" w/ Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah!

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

Yes they would, because criminals, if they can't get guns legally, WILL get them ILLEGALLY. And otherwise law-abiding citizens will automatically become criminals just for owning, or being in possession of, a firearm.

When guns are outlawed :
1. Only outlaws will have guns
2. Those who have guns will automatically become outlaws

nice, i like the one that says "gun control works, ask the experts" w/ Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah!

Yeah, after they instituted "gun control", the law-abiding citizens had no guns, which made them easier prey for a malevolent government! Which is why I say "NO" to gun control (except for the "hitting your target" kind).

Ted Kennedy`s car has killed more people than my guns:)

Why would not having a gun make you homosexual?
The same way that not having a gun during a zombie apocalypse makes you a member of the undead.

Here in California where assault rifles are illegal, i happen to know several people who can get me one (I know even more who actually have them). So, whenever someone says that banning guns will stop crime, I have to take a few seconds to laugh. "Make guns illegal, crime will stop" is nothing more than a joke. (Also for those who care to know, it is relatively easy to convert a semi into an automatic weapon.)

Conversion's not as easy as you make it sound... the anti-gun nuts who spout BS like cant tell you anything about how its accomplished

but anyway most semi-to-automatic conversions are difficult, permanent, run the risk of damage to the gun and are a 25-to-life felony to boot

Yeah, after they instituted "gun control", the law-abiding citizens had no guns, which made them easier prey for a malevolent government! Which is why I say "NO" to gun control (except for the "hitting your target" kind).welcome aboard pro -gunner

When the zombie apocalypse comes, you'll regret that you don't have guns!

Conversion's not as easy as you make it sound... the anti-gun nuts who spout BS like cant tell you anything about how its accomplished

but anyway most semi-to-automatic conversions are difficult, permanent, run the risk of damage to the gun and are a 25-to-life felony to boot

most of the anti`s don`t know their ass from applebutter anyways. it`s not a lack of access to a machine shop or the know-how around here, i`m not real keen on the felony.

Nah, I also find guns to be rubbish. But I learned along time ago that it's an impossible subject to debate, and I should probably just shut up about it.

When the zombie apocalypse comes, you'll regret that you don't have guns! if you`re without guns for the zombie apocalypse,:upyours: !!!!!

When the zombie apocalypse comes, you'll regret that you don't have guns!

Exactly! Remember Raccoon City!

Conversion's not as easy as you make it sound... the anti-gun nuts who spout BS like cant tell you anything about how its accomplished

but anyway most semi-to-automatic conversions are difficult, permanent, run the risk of damage to the gun and are a 25-to-life felony to boot

Here's a good example of "slam fire" from "Gunboards". This is what would most likely occur if you "convert" your semi to full:

About 6 years ago I was out shooting with my brother at my land. We were shooting my SPAS 12 and his MINI14 and my AR15 shorty. We had been out about 3 hours just plinking really. I thought on my last round of my 20 round mag there was a different sound. The problem was that I had in plugs and muffs on so there wasn't much sound. I was not paying attention or I would have caught what happened.
Up until now we were shooting singles and just farting around trying to best each other in accuracy as brothers often do. I decided to try a new 30 round mag I bought at a gun show. My brother was standing on my left side about 5 feet away when I hit the bolt release. The rifle started to slam fire because the firing pin was broken and just outside the hole in the bolt. The firing pin spring was in three pieces. After about 6 rounds There was a blockage and the next round touched off blowing the magazine out of the mag well (breaking the slam fire chain), splitting the barrell and blowing the front handguard to the left. Pieces of The aluminum heat shield and handguard caught my brother just above the the eye and wrapped around his head fracturing his skull. He had burns to both eyes.
I was wearing a heavy canvas field coat that was shredded. My arms were badly bruised and my left arm (I'm right handed) was broken in 2 places and I lost 1 knuckle on my right hand. I feel this would have never had happened had I paid more attention to the danger of a broken firing pin and spring. I was using surplus ammo that I bought at the gun show.

Nah, I also find guns to be rubbish. But I learned along time ago that it's an impossible subject to debate, and I should probably just shut up about it.it would be easier to debate if the anti`s get on one side of a field and the pro`s get on the other. should be over fairly quick.

Yes they would, because criminals, if they can't get guns legally, WILL get them ILLEGALLY. And otherwise law-abiding citizens will automatically become criminals just for owning, or being in possession of, a firearm.

When guns are outlawed :
1. Only outlaws will have guns
2. Those who have guns will automatically become outlaws

That's an argument against banning anything, are you in favour of total legalisation?. And both 1 and 2 mean the same thing.

The general idea of a ban is you don't just say "don't do it" you try and enforce it.

Guns are evil, but they're here to stay.

Guns are evil, but they're here to stay.

An inanimate object is evil?

Guns are made to kill people. I will keep repeating it until you realize it.

Well we realized it a long time ago. But that doesn't alter our God-given right to own them. It's revoltingly hypocritical to say that we have a right to live and not a right to defend ourselves. Their legitimate use has nothing to do with criminals, other than frequently resulting in their deaths, and frankly I'm not going to complain about dead would-be muggers even if their corpses are piled in the streets. Let them stay there as an example to other yobs. Besides, people will always be able to get guns whether they're legal or not.

Also related to the original point: Knives are also made to kill. Are we going to ban them? What about bows and crossbows?

Seriously, though.

I personally don't own a gun, and my parents own an 80 year old family heirloom rifle. All the same, I've been a member of my university's pistol club, which does target shooting once a week, with small caliber competition target pistols. Safe handling, respect and responsible use rules for guns are important for any shooter, who wishes to participate in the a sport that requires tremendous physical control and concentration.

To say that there is no use for pistols besides bringing harm to another human being is, to quote the OP, "rubbish", and as a responsible member of society and gun user, I find his/her commentary to be of little value to the debate.

Anyways, what made Manchester a slum? Was it the guns that did it, or was it other, underlying conditions that, concurrently, brought the guns onto the scene in the city, that made Manchester suck. Something tells me option B is the correct one.

Well we realized it a long time ago. But that doesn't alter our God-given right to own them. It's revoltingly hypocritical to say that we have a right to live and not a right to defend ourselves. Their legitimate use has nothing to do with criminals, other than frequently resulting in their deaths, and frankly I'm not going to complain about dead would-be muggers even if their corpses are piled in the streets. Let them stay there as an example to other yobs. Besides, people will always be able to get guns whether they're legal or not.

Also related to the original point: Knives are also made to kill. Are we going to ban them? What about bows and crossbows?

Do me a favour and quote the passage in the Bible where it says "thou shalt be allowed to have guns" or are the people who wrote the constitution christian prophets now?

Guns are by their nature offensive weapons.

People are always going to be able to kill each other, whether it's legal or not.
Same for drugs or almost any other banned act/object/etc. That argument is one that works equally well for them all really. Do you want nothing banned?

Guns are a relatively easy way of killing people. I like the idea of making it hard for people to kill each other.

I think it is important to hold our past as a guide.

I am sorry I cannot quote the year or emperor, but there was a time in Japanese history when the government desided to crack down in whidespread bandit attacks by banning swords and other blade weapons from the posetion of non-military citizens.

This worked for a while, and the emperor was pleased, however, soon enough, violence returned at unpresidented levels. You see, while the government had removed weapons, the bandits developed sophisticated hand-to-hand combat techniques copied and adapted from those of the samuri. Thus, martial arts became a lasting symbol of japanese civilization.

the only difference is, crime had reached a previously unheard of level of organization.

So you see, the goal should not be limiting the tools of violence as much as possible, it should be focusing on changing the social problems that cause violence in the first place.

It worked in new york in the late 80s.

Well we realized it a long time ago. But that doesn't alter our God-given right to own them. It's revoltingly hypocritical to say that we have a right to live and not a right to defend ourselves. Their legitimate use has nothing to do with criminals, other than frequently resulting in their deaths, and frankly I'm not going to complain about dead would-be muggers even if their corpses are piled in the streets. Let them stay there as an example to other yobs. Besides, people will always be able to get guns whether they're legal or not.

Also related to the original point: Knives are also made to kill. Are we going to ban them? What about bows and crossbows? don`t forget that living causes death too, outlaw life!

That's an argument against banning anything, are you in favour of total legalisation?. And both 1 and 2 mean the same thing.

No, 1 and 2 are NOT EXACTLY the same thing.

1 states that only criminals (i.e. people who were criminals even before banning guns,) will have guns

2 states that otherwise law-abiding citizens, if they keep their guns, will be in violation of the law if guns are banned.

BTW, if they turn in their weapons, they will become easier prey for those who keep theirs. And for the government.

I am not necessarily in favor of total legalization of ALL types of firearms; I'm just saying NO NEW, MORE RESTRICTIVE LAWS should be passed

The general idea of a ban is you don't just say "don't do it" you try and enforce it.

Well, DUH! What was your point in saying THAT?:headbang:

Also related to the original point: Knives are also made to kill. Are we going to ban them? What about bows and crossbows?

Don't forget a big, stout stick, which is also pretty much custom designed to whack someone over the head with. Let's cut down all the trees.

Also, we should definitely ban tall buildings, ladders, and cliffs. Someone could get pushed off.

Better get rid of all the rope, twine, etc. Someone might get hung.

And matches. Matches are a tool of the devil. They're used to set people on fire. For that matter, let's just go ahead and get rid of fire.

Sure, all these things have a use besides being a tool in the hands of criminals. Then again, guns have other uses as well. Hunting, self-defense...some of them are even works of art, not to mention a part of our history.

I saw an entertaining news story recently (sadly I don't have a link to it). Apparently, in England there's a push to ban certain types of knives.

I expect there will soon be a ban on fire there as well.

Do me a favour and quote the passage in the Bible where it says "thou shalt be allowed to have guns" or are the people who wrote the constitution christian prophets now?

Guns are by their nature offensive weapons.

People are always going to be able to kill each other, whether it's legal or not.
Same for drugs or almost any other banned act/object/etc. That argument is one that works equally well for them all really. Do you want nothing banned?

Guns are a relatively easy way of killing people. I like the idea of making it hard for people to kill each other.

I fully disagree. Guns, save military weapons, are primarily for sport or personal defense (specifically, deterrent defense, rare is the need to fire a gun when faced with a threat to ones person) primarily. Only military weapons are primarily designed for killing human beings.

Guns are a relatively easy way of killing people. I like the idea of making it hard for people to kill each other.

I will repeat my earlier post:

Since the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the state should it become necessary, any government restriction on the civilian ownership of weapons is absurd.

I fully disagree. Guns, save military weapons, are primarily for sport or personal defense (specifically, deterrent defense, rare is the need to fire a gun when faced with a threat to ones person) primarily. Only military weapons are primarily designed for killing human beings.exactly, military-issue weapons are full-auto assault weapons. so the government must turn in its guns.

Don't forget a big, stout stick, which is also pretty much custom designed to whack someone over the head with. Let's cut down all the trees.

Also, we should definitely ban tall buildings, ladders, and cliffs. Someone could get pushed off.

Better get rid of all the rope, twine, etc. Someone might get hung.

And matches. Matches are a tool of the devil. They're used to set people on fire. For that matter, let's just go ahead and get rid of fire.

Sure, all these things have a use besides being a tool in the hands of criminals. Then again, guns have other uses as well. Hunting, self-defense...some of them are even works of art, not to mention a part of our history.

I saw an entertaining news story recently (sadly I don't have a link to it). Apparently, in England there's a push to ban certain types of knives.

I expect there will soon be a ban on fire there as well.
Dammit, now they`re going to take fire from me too. pretty soon the only thing i`ll have left to play with is myself..........no they`ll probably outlaw that too.

Well! "King" Simmoa, you think guns are rubbish? Well, i can tell you, when theres is someone in my house, nicking my stuff, i want the right to be able to shoot him in the head if i want to!

Where do you get off? I bet you are some kind of beard wearing, pony tail having, short wearing, hippy with a history of mary jew arna abuse, too many piercings, a cheap watch, a silly accent, an obsession with childrens toys from what you joking call 'back in the day' thunder cats will never be 'cool' you hackey sack playing hippy. I bet you won't even reply, you'll probably be down a tt he beach with all your 'peeps' throwing around a frisbee becaue you aren't manly enough to play Football. If theres one thing that gets up my nose, its stupid university students mouthing off on forums at people, thinking they are right because its what they grew up with, how narrow minded can you be, you should come down to my neighbourhood sometime and i will show you what a gun can be used for. I sleep with a gun under my pillow because i want to feel safe. If i ruled the world, people like you would be forced to work in my video rental stores where you can see what real people like, rather than your smelly, vegetarian, hobo hugging, vitamin chugging youth of today.(I apologize for the rhyme, it was not intentional) I bet you study somethin gof no use to mankind like anthropology, you filthy hippy. God help you, because no-one else but your leftist commie nutters will. You sicken me.Bloody University Students!

My gun of choice is the H&K USPc because Jack Bauer has one on 24 and i think hes cool.

Seiwwup Prevails! (Especially over beatniks like you)

i`ve had enough for now. i think i`ll go in the backyard and shoot something. yes, if i shoot a paper target i`ll help get rid of those evil trees!:sniper:

I for one think that guns are unsporting and the world should regress back to the pre-crossbow era, weilding swords and chainmail.

However, that will never happen and I am aware guns will stay...at least until we develop a cheaper, more effective, and easier to use weapon with which to commit and end crimes.

I for one think that guns are unsporting and the world should regress back to the pre-crossbow era, weilding swords and chainmail.

However, that will never happen and I am aware guns will stay...at least until we develop a cheaper, more effective, and easier to use weapon with which to commit and end crimes.

When someone's breaking into my house and/or threatening my family, the last thing I'm concerned about is "sporting".

the adrenaline rush is overcome for us mere "civilians" the same way it is overcome for police and military. PRACTICE-PRACTICE-PRACTICE.

Depends on the bullet and the property. W/ practice. adrenaline can improve aim.
I stand corrected, but none the less shooting at someone who's shooting back will probably be different from shooting paper targets or clay pigeons.
When the zombie apocalypse comes, you'll regret that you don't have guns!
When the zombie apocalypse comes I'll be the first to welcome our new shuffling overlords.
Also related to the original point: Knives are also made to kill. Are we going to ban them? What about bows and crossbows?

Relatively few knives are made for killing people. Knives are made for cutting things. Some can also be used for stabbing. While many many knives can cut or stab a person in a manner which would kill them, they are not designed for this purpose. Guns are made to propel bullets or shot at great speeds. Many are designed so that the bullets or shot will hit what they are aimed at with maximum precision and cause considerable damage to what they hit.

...Many are designed so that the bullets or shot will hit what they are aimed at with maximum precision and cause considerable damage to what they hit.

As many knives are preferred as sharp as possible, perhaps with good balance for ease in handling...I've seen those "carve a niche in a cinderblock" infomercials. Who eats cinderblocks?

When someone's breaking into my house and/or threatening my family, the last thing I'm concerned about is "sporting".

I agree 100% with that. I feel that the world should regress to ancient weaponry such as swords mainly because it would most definitely lessen wars and/or the readiness to engage in them. This will never happen though obviously.

I agree 100% with that. I feel that the world should regress to ancient weaponry such as swords mainly because it would most definitely lessen wars and/or the readiness to engage in them. This will never happen though obviously.

Because, you know, they didn't have war before guns were invented.

Oh, wait...

Read some accounts of ancient battles. Read about the lists of wounded and dead. They make some of our "modern" wars seem like children's scuffles.

History has shown us that mankind will wage war, on a large or small scale, no matter what weapons he happens to have on hand.

But hey, it gives us a hobby and keeps us off the street.

When the zombie apocalypse comes, you'll regret that you don't have guns!

Clicky (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v415/DWJohnson/zombierepellent.jpg)

Because, you know, they didn't have war before guns were invented.

Oh, wait...

Read some accounts of ancient battles. Read about the lists of wounded and dead. They make some of our "modern" wars seem like children's scuffles.

History has shown us that mankind will wage war, on a large or small scale, no matter what weapons he happens to have on hand.



I am well aware of that, but I can't shrug the feeling that governments would be more hesitant in waging war if there were not hydrogen bombs backing it up. Societal pressure might just be enough to keep some unnecessary conflicts from taking place.

I am well aware of that, but I can't shrug the feeling that governments would be more hesitant in waging war if there were not hydrogen bombs backing it up. Societal pressure might just be enough to keep some unnecessary conflicts from taking place.

Look at a timeline for just the last 50 years, you might be surprised by how many wars were started and fought by countries who don't have the hydrogen bomb, or nuclear capability at all.

Societal pressure is often what causes wars. There is, however, no quick and easy answer. We've always used violence to solve problems, and probably will continue to do so in the future. Unless the underlying motivations and reactions are changed, wars will continue to happen.

Look at a timeline for just the last 50 years, you might be surprised by how many wars were started and fought by countries who don't have the hydrogen bomb, or nuclear capability at all.

Societal pressure is often what causes wars. There is, however, no quick and easy answer. We've always used violence to solve problems, and probably will continue to do so in the future. Unless the underlying motivations and reactions are changed, wars will continue to happen.

True, true...

But at least the environment and the stability of Earth's crust might be more secure if all we used was flat metal prods instead of explosives...

How do you shoot politicians if you do not have a guns? How will politicians listen to you unless they are afraid you will kill them? Why would they listen to you if they were not afraid of you? Why would you want the politicians to have control of all the guns? If they have all the weapons do they not have all the power? When have people in history with all the power treated those without power justly?

Now i have my right wing rant out the way, allow me to expound the virtues of 'Giving Up The Gun' (GUTG).

the only country in the wrold to have ever GUTG is Feudal Japan during the Sengoku warring period. This happened after Oda Nobunga defeated an entire cavalry charge with three ranks of peasants armed with arqebuses using ranked volley fire.

The Samurai were so irked by this they put massive sanctions on the making of firearms and only traded them. ti was not the portugese who brought firearms to Japan, it was the Chinese, its just the japanese didnt like them because they were so dishonoroable. There were actually 7 pound artillery guns over looking the harbour, its just they had forgotten how to use them.

Guns cannot be used for defense, in the same way that nuclear weapons cannot be used in defense. "There is no such thing as one all in nuclear war" (Brigstocke, 2007) A shield is a defensive measure, a bunker is too, something that fires projectiles is not defensive unless it is used to intercept other projetiles.

Every tool has military appluications, from the first handaxe and adze to the later military picks and unique trowel shaped bayonets of the French Army in the 19th century to help them dig earthworks. It can't be helped, but certain weapons, such as firearms, which have the capacity to kill well beyond their own losses are a problem for society.

I agree that making guns illegal will mean that only criminals have guns, it is a requirment for a criminal to break the rules, its in the job description (Pratchett, 2003ish) But at the same time, flooding the market with them is not a sure way to stop gun crime. To quote marcus Brigstocke once more. "I manage to not have crystal meth for breakfast by not keeping it in the fridge. It might seem simple, but its the easiest to not do somethign is to not have the means. I make sure my people never rise up in a brutal uprising by not having them enslaved".

Wars are useful, as they are a means of controlling population. I am not a nutter, honest, but i do beleive that the earth and its population spike is a sign that in this case diplomacy might not be the answer.

I suppose this is a silly question, but has anyone read Arthur C. Clarkes 'Trigger'? look it up, its a spectacular book that superbly highlights the problems with firearms.

As to the points raised that guns allow for an uprising. Do you have any idea why its called a REvolution? Becuase every time we rise, we appoint the same people, who balls it up, and a 100 years down the line, nothing has changed, only the faces in power.

Also, if you are going to raise an effective assualt against the government, particularly in america, which has one of the biggest GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED armies in the world, i would ask you this. You might have an M4 with 5.56mm ammunition, but what will that do against a .30cal machine gun, mounted on the front of a tank? Or the hundreds of thousands of like minded people who actually have a rank system and chain of command, rather than just being a person running around the neighbourhood, shooting at people you think are 'bad'? (Which is an abstract concept like evil and is entirely subjective)

Thank You for listening.

damn seiwwu and i actually thought we had a kindred spirit here... shame

as for your spiel about how ineffective an uprising would be...

the russian invasion of afghanistan in 1979, with infantry equipped with MODERN, FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS and MODERN ARMORED VEHICLES, were beaten completely out of the country by islamic rebels often armed with NINETEENTH-CENTURY, BOLT-ACTION RIFLES, and lost 60,000 soldiers in the process. they were a large, organized army with a numerical advantage of more than 20 to 1 over the rebels. 60,000 dead russians can't all be wrong.

and besides even oppressors calculate costs... one of the towns near where i live has enough guns and able-bodied adolescents and adults, and the tactical know-how to stand up to an occupation quite nicely. even if they got killed the populace could still give em hell, or harass them long enough to make them seriously reconsider their position.

and suddenly evil is entirely subjective? if that were true, a jew's belief in the unspeakable inhumanity of the holocaust and some skinhead's belief in its necessity are just differences of opinion. after all, everythings relative isnt it?

Guns cannot be used for defense, in the same way that nuclear weapons cannot be used in defense. "There is no such thing as one all in nuclear war" (Brigstocke, 2007) A shield is a defensive measure, a bunker is too, something that fires projectiles is not defensive unless it is used to intercept other projetiles.


I want to address this right here. Guns can be, and are used in a defensive way, all the time. Here's a situation for you: A mugger approaches me, pulls out a knife, and demands my wallet. I pull out a pistol, point it at him, and watch as he takes off running. That is a defensive use, and I didn't even have to pull the trigger.

Same situation, but this time when I pull the pistol out, the mugger lunges at me with the intent of stabbing me. I shoot him, maybe he dies, and I live. That is also a defensive use.

and suddenly evil is entirely subjective? if that were true, a jew's belief in the unspeakable inhumanity of the holocaust and some skinhead's belief in its necessity are just differences of opinion. after all, everythings relative isnt it?

Yes, everything is relative to the observer. Even this post. In fact if you follow nihilism this doesn't even exist, only the idea. If you follow logical positivism, there is no point to this argument because we will never change anything, so we may as well go and get a proper job and contribute to society rather than blowing parts of it away with a firearm)

And yes, Afghanistan is a superb example, as is vietnam, as is iraq, and afghanistan II (the Sequel!) I am not disputing the efficiency of a firearm on a battlefield, but there is a huge difference in waging a guerrila war with a well organized and funded army, and a riot with firearms.

But then to be honest, why would you need to rise up? Im guessing you come from America, Britains cousin across the way, and it strikes me as the fact that the current presidency is entirely up your street.After all, the first election my have been a swindle, but the second was. If there was ever going to be an uprising it would be now, as america's metoeric social and economic rise is being hampered by an inefficient and militaristic government. The War on Terror is not going to work. You cannot force people to be happy. You cannot burst into a house in Iraq carrying a firearm shouting for a surrender and expect people to love you.

As for the above point regarding the defensive nature of a firearm, it is still not defensive. I agree that you have ended the fight by nuetralizing the opposition, but at the same time all you have done by shooting him is, to quote Garfield, 'Hit them back first' a defensive measure would be to block the knife, to remove the knife from his hand, to run away. Running up and kicking him in the pills is not a defensive measure.

Who else wants a piece?

Why would not having a gun make you homosexual?

Apparently, homosexuals have guns, too.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/images/splash3.jpg

But then to be honest, why would you need to rise up? Im guessing you come from America, Britains cousin across the way, and it strikes me as the fact that the current presidency is entirely up your street.After all, the first election my have been a swindle, but the second was. If there was ever going to be an uprising it would be now, as america's metoeric social and economic rise is being hampered by an inefficient and militaristic government. The War on Terror is not going to work. You cannot force people to be happy. You cannot burst into a house in Iraq carrying a firearm shouting for a surrender and expect people to love you.

As for the above point regarding the defensive nature of a firearm, it is still not defensive. I agree that you have ended the fight by nuetralizing the opposition, but at the same time all you have done by shooting him is, to quote Garfield, 'Hit them back first' a defensive measure would be to block the knife, to remove the knife from his hand, to run away. Running up and kicking him in the pills is not a defensive measure.

Who else wants a piece?

and suddenly im with this guy as he makes a bloody good point. im sure that a few flag wavers are going to hate him on principle but the final point about not being able to defend with an offensive weapon is spot on.

in reply to his first post though im sure he made this point whilst sat on the edge of his bed in the mid afternoon wearing only his underwear, surrounded with crisp packets, empty drinks cartons, dirty clothes and , ironically, a whole pile of firearms. and i bet as he reads this through unwashed eyes hidden behind coservitive spectacles in need of a polish and below a mohawk hes thinking of all the intelligent ways he can make a comeback by quoting all sorts of obscure shit at me instead of goin out and gettin some excersise at the beach or even shooting something.

eat it, aint got a job boy.

you did make a good point though

damn seiwwu and i actually thought we had a kindred spirit here... shame

as for your spiel about how ineffective an uprising would be...

the russian invasion of afghanistan in 1979, with infantry equipped with MODERN, FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS and MODERN ARMORED VEHICLES, were beaten completely out of the country by islamic rebels often armed with NINETEENTH-CENTURY, BOLT-ACTION RIFLES, and lost 60,000 soldiers in the process. they were a large, organized army with a numerical advantage of more than 20 to 1 over the rebels. 60,000 dead russians can't all be wrong.

and besides even oppressors calculate costs... one of the towns near where i live has enough guns and able-bodied adolescents and adults, and the tactical know-how to stand up to an occupation quite nicely. even if they got killed the populace could still give em hell, or harass them long enough to make them seriously reconsider their position.

and suddenly evil is entirely subjective? if that were true, a jew's belief in the unspeakable inhumanity of the holocaust and some skinhead's belief in its necessity are just differences of opinion. after all, everythings relative isnt it? do you live near me? maybe we`re not the only ones who could make a stand. i`m from a small town (pop. 1100), we are 30 miles from a medium sized city and 45 from another. most of us were raised around guns, primarily to hunt but knowing the business end of things. we learned from our fathers who learned from theirs, some of whom our gov`t trained to shoot to kill. we are in an area where people don`t see much of the gov`t except for tax time and elections, we like it that way. we`ve got the frontier independence feeling around here and when big brother tells us we can`t have this kind of gun or you can`t burn your trash or leaves anymore and the schools force this PC revisionist bullshit on our children, we have a tendency to get pissy about it. our actual crime rate is fairly low, usually a little vandalism or an occasional robbery-it`s the 1 DUI a year that`s the talk of the coffee shop. but this part of the world is deep in the war on meth. this scourge is what occupies law enforcement in this area and allows all the other petty crime to prosper. the local cops have resorted to citizen involvment to stop this plague. so tweekers,be advised that good old boy in the pick-up and seed corn hat is the one keeping tabs on you and if you steal what you need on his property you`ll probably be bleeding there when they come to get you. after we`ve tipped off the law to where you stash your transfer tanks and they do nothing about them , we turn them to swiss cheese. relations with the gov`t go to hell once you pass the county level, any one who is interested do a google search on "Roby Ridge", not to be confused w/Randy Weaver`s Ruby Ridge. a brief synopsis on "Roby Ridge": Roby, Illinois is so small it`s not on most maps, maybe 50 people live there. it`s located about 15 miles east of Springfield, Il (the actual capitol). Shirley Allen lived in a small home on about 30 acres a mile east of Roby, Ms. Allens`s relatives tried to have her commited in order to take control of her land and estate. Ms Allen refused to go, the family got the state police involved in trying to remove her. the state asked our county for help and upon arriving on scene and assessing the situation, promptly told the state "we`re not getting involved in this" . for about 3-4 weeks the state police laid siege to this 60 year old womans house, every thing they threw at this "incompetent" woman, she was able to counter-cutting off power, knocking out her windows in 30 degree weather ,tear gas. after she was finally taken down and sent for mental evaluation, she was found to be fine. all this at a cost of several million of my tax dollars and some of you wonder why there a people around you who don`t trust the gov`t and arm themselves to the teeth. ever stop to think maybe the system is out of control, wonder about that when they come knocking on your door !:headbang:

Those are all horrible examples. Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people by other methods than guns. Gas chambers, cremation, abhorrent medical testing, starvation, exhaustion, etc. The fact that these people were able to be rounded up like sheep to the slaughter was, in fact, because they were disarmed. Not to sure about the Soviets during Stalin though, they may have been allowed gun, but I doubt it since Stalin was a dictator and paranoid as all hell. As for the Tutsis/Hutu example that one was the worst of all. Most of those people were killed with machetes and hacked to death than were shot.

Otherwise I agree with everything else. History would be different from we know it but the violence would not, in my opinion

It should be noted that the Hitler was able to do what he did because he had all of the guns, and when he didn't the jews resisted (warsaw rebellions anyone?), Statlin took away all of the guns after the civil war, and the hutus and tutsis were also involved in a civil war (although the hate was there before)

Well we realized it a long time ago. But that doesn't alter our God-given right to own them. It's revoltingly hypocritical to say that we have a right to live and not a right to defend ourselves. Their legitimate use has nothing to do with criminals, other than frequently resulting in their deaths, and frankly I'm not going to complain about dead would-be muggers even if their corpses are piled in the streets. Let them stay there as an example to other yobs. Besides, people will always be able to get guns whether they're legal or not.

Also related to the original point: Knives are also made to kill. Are we going to ban them? What about bows and crossbows?

Never said that no one should own them, thinking we are going to rid ourselves of private ownership is foolish so I'm not even going to think about it. It doesn't change the fact that they are made to kill people though, that is inarguable.

Unlike guns, only a small minority of knives are built to be weapons against people. And I don't recall bows and crossbows being designed to shoot at people anymore.

Never said that no one should own them, thinking we are going to rid ourselves of private ownership is foolish so I'm not even going to think about it. It doesn't change the fact that they are made to kill people though, that is inarguable.

Unlike guns, only a small minority of knives are built to be weapons against people. And I don't recall bows and crossbows being designed to shoot at people anymore.if you are saying all guns are designed to kill people, then you are wrong about knives. even the common butterknife could be altered to have a cutting edge. as issued, one could still inflict puncture wounds with it. yes, the same gun that was made for hunting or target shooting could be used to kill people but that may not be what it was designed for. one of the military rifles that you would say is made to kill people could also be used for hunting or target shooting. it`s not the gun or the knife, it`s the individual who is using it who determines if it is used for good or evil. as for bows and crossbows, the same train of thought applies. for that matter, anything ever built by man could be used to inflict bodily harm to another.

if you are saying all guns are designed to kill people, then you are wrong about knives. even the common butterknife could be altered to have a cutting edge. as issued, one could still inflict puncture wounds with it. yes, the same gun that was made for hunting or target shooting could be used to kill people but that may not be what it was designed for. one of the military rifles that you would say is made to kill people could also be used for hunting or target shooting. it`s not the gun or the knife, it`s the individual who is using it who determines if it is used for good or evil. as for bows and crossbows, the same train of thought applies. for that matter, anything ever built by man could be used to inflict bodily harm to another.

I've heard this argument so many times and it is so false. Guns were originally designed and invented as tools to kill people. That is their purpose. You can send me links to guns designed as target shooters or hunting weapons, and even list all the other uses that guns can be put to, but the fact remains that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill something. Period.

Butter knives were originally designed to spread butter. They wern't designed as killing tools. Guns were.

I've heard this argument so many times and it is so false. Guns were originally designed and invented as tools to kill people. That is their purpose. You can send me links to guns designed as target shooters or hunting weapons, and even list all the other uses that guns can be put to, but the fact remains that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill something. Period.

Butter knives were originally designed to spread butter. They wern't designed as killing tools. Guns were.

Round and round we go. Isn't it nice how you contradict yourself by saying some firearms aren't designed to kill something then say they are?

Why does "design" have ANYTHING to do with it?

Hasn't anyone ever heard of "improvisation?" You know, like 9/11. Airliner jets may not be DESIGNED as giant flying bombs intended to kill and destroy. They just HAPPEN to be useful at it! But hey, they're not DESIGNED that way, so let's just all hold hands, ignore them, and condemn things that ARE.

And no, knives were originally designed to carve up flesh. You know, Jeffrey Dahmer-style.

if you are saying all guns are designed to kill people, then you are wrong about knives. even the common butterknife could be altered to have a cutting edge. as issued, one could still inflict puncture wounds with it. yes, the same gun that was made for hunting or target shooting could be used to kill people but that may not be what it was designed for. one of the military rifles that you would say is made to kill people could also be used for hunting or target shooting. it`s not the gun or the knife, it`s the individual who is using it who determines if it is used for good or evil. as for bows and crossbows, the same train of thought applies. for that matter, anything ever built by man could be used to inflict bodily harm to another.

Currently knives and bows aren't designed with the intent of causing harm to others (with a few exceptions I'm sure). Certainly with the butterknife, it wasn't designed to kill people. It is the design and than intent that matters. The majority of guns are made for the express purpose of killing others. Sure, they can be used for something else but that isn't why they were made. Just like it makes no sense to throw out these other examples of possible killing tools when isn't what they were made for.

Round and round we go. Isn't it nice how you contradict yourself by saying some firearms aren't designed to kill something then say they are?

Read what i actually posted. "Guns were originally designed and invented as tools to kill people."

To further this, it is quite easy to kill someone with a gun that was designed as a target shooter. Its bloody difficult to kill someone with a butter knife.

Hasn't anyone ever heard of "improvisation?" You know, like 9/11. Airliner jets may not be DESIGNED as giant flying bombs intended to kill and destroy. They just HAPPEN to be useful at it! But hey, they're not DESIGNED that way, so let's just all hold hands, ignore them, and condemn things that ARE.

I'm sure no one is suggesting that because of this one case that airliners should be considered weapons though. Guns are made to kill which is why they are.

Why does "design" have ANYTHING to do with it?

Hasn't anyone ever heard of "improvisation?" You know, like 9/11. Airliner jets may not be DESIGNED as giant flying bombs intended to kill and destroy. They just HAPPEN to be useful at it! But hey, they're not DESIGNED that way, so let's just all hold hands, ignore them, and condemn things that ARE.

And no, knives were originally designed to carve up flesh. You know, Jeffrey Dahmer-style.

Ok we'll follow the logic of this.

I could design a machine that has the specific purpose of flaying human bodies. Because it has the possibility to be used for something else that makes it acceptable?

I could design a machine that has the specific purpose of tanning leather hides. Sure it could be improvised to tan a human hide but thats not what it was designed for.

Do you get it yet? Guns were designed as killing tools. Airplanes and knives were not.

Read what i actually posted. "Guns were originally designed and invented as tools to kill people."

To further this, it is quite easy to kill someone with a gun that was designed as a target shooter. Its bloody difficult to kill someone with a butter knife.

Now read your last sentance again.

Currently knives and bows aren't designed with the intent of causing harm to others (with a few exceptions I'm sure). Certainly with the butterknife, it wasn't designed to kill people. It is the design and than intent that matters. The majority of guns are made for the express purpose of killing others. Sure, they can be used for something else but that isn't why they were made. Just like it makes no sense to throw out these other examples of possible killing tools when isn't what they were made for. go through your house and garage,take inventory and then dispose of anything that could be used as a weapon (follow your original design idea first, then go by could be used as one). you would be suprised as to how much stuff will be lying in your trash. as for your stand on bows,etc. they have not changed for centuries. they were originally designed to man and game.with todays modern compound bows, they have been refined into modern killing machines.

Now read your last sentance again.

I did. Here it is.

"Butter knives were originally designed to spread butter. They wern't designed as killing tools. Guns were"

Where did I go wrong with that?

Currently knives and bows aren't designed with the intent of causing harm to others (with a few exceptions I'm sure). Certainly with the butterknife, it wasn't designed to kill people. It is the design and than intent that matters. The majority of guns are made for the express purpose of killing others. Sure, they can be used for something else but that isn't why they were made. Just like it makes no sense to throw out these other examples of possible killing tools when isn't what they were made for.

Bows weren't originally and currently designed to cause harm? Really?

I did. Here it is.

"Butter knives were originally designed to spread butter. They wern't designed as killing tools. Guns were"

Where did I go wrong with that?

Nice try.

Here ya go:

but the fact remains that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill something. Period.

Bows weren't originally and currently designed to cause harm? Really?

The vast majority of bows in todays day and age are produced as target shooters. When you can say the same about firearms your argument might hold some water.

good to see your not going to let this rest either, Kecibukia:D

Guns are simply a further increment in the long procession of implements devised by humanity with which to defend itself.

Whilst I can share the OP's sentiments regarding "gun culture", and the attendant tragedies that occur in the inner cities, it is illogical to contend that guns have no place in society, nor are they inherently evil. A gun can, and regulalrly is, put to great good.

Nice try.

Here ya go:

but the fact remains that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill something. Period.

Again whats the problem? Thats their purpose isn't it?

I'm sure no one is suggesting that because of this one case that airliners should be considered weapons though.

I am. Of course airplanes are weapons. To think otherwise is to ignore not only 9/11, but the kamikazes of WWII, and common sense.

However I don't support banning airplanes. "weapon" does not equate to "ban!" in my book.

Guns are made to kill which is why they are.

A weapon does not have to be "made to kill." According to Merriam-Webster, a weapon need only be something that is USED to "injure, defeat, or destroy."

Use is the operating word here. Not design.

Ok we'll follow the logic of this.

I could design a machine that has the specific purpose of flaying human bodies. Because it has the possibility to be used for something else that makes it acceptable?

As far as I know there is no law against creating a machine like that.

There is however a law against flaying humans. Killing and flaying people would be the wrong thing here, not the having of a machine.

Do you get it yet? Guns were designed as killing tools. Airplanes and knives were not.

No, I'm pretty sure knives were designed as weapons.

Not that "design" has any further bearing on this matter. ;)

The vast majority of bows in todays day and age are produced as target shooters. When you can say the same about firearms your argument might hold some water.

What targets? Oh, right, animals.

Again whats the problem? Thats their purpose isn't it?

And yet even you admitted there are ones designed for target shooting and other purposes. Hence contradicting yourself.
Keep dodging.

The vast majority of bows in todays day and age are produced as target shooters. When you can say the same about firearms your argument might hold some water. i have a vast array of target arms at my home, i also have some modern archery equipment. i could target shoot or i could kill with either. i could also inflict harm with my butter knife. it is all how i choose to use whatever tool is in my hand.

And yet even you admitted there are ones designed for target shooting and other purposes. Hence contradicting yourself.
Keep dodging.

Now read the rest of what I said and try commenting on that instead of dodging yourself.

Whilst SOME guns (an extreme minority) are desin=gned and manufactured as target shooters or sporting weapons it is very easy still to use them to kill. They need no modification or extra skill. It is simply a matter of where you point them.

The same could not be said of knives etc.

EDIT - About airplanes, yes what I said about pointing them somewhere else could be applied to airplanes. The difference is very few people have an airplane sitting in their back yard.

Now read the rest of what I said and try commenting on that instead of dodging yourself.

Whilst SOME guns (an extreme minority) are desin=gned and manufactured as target shooters or sporting weapons it is very easy still to use them to kill. They need no modification or extra skill. It is simply a matter of where you point them.

The same could not be said of knives etc.

EDIT - About airplanes, yes what I said about pointing them somewhere else could be applied to airplanes. The difference is very few people have an airplane sitting in their back yard.

You state the the "vast majority" of bows are designed for target shooting and an "extreme minority" of firearms are designed as target shooting or sporting.

Both are false as has been shown over and over again.

I could say the same about bows being where you point them but you'll dodge that as well.

You state the the "vast majority" of bows are designed for target shooting and an "extreme minority" of firearms are designed as target shooting or sporting.

Both are false as has been shown over and over again.

I could say the same about bows being where you point them but you'll dodge that as well.

I'd like to see you prove that

I am. Of course airplanes are weapons. To think otherwise is to ignore not only 9/11, but the kamikazes of WWII, and common sense.

However I don't support banning airplanes. "weapon" does not equate to "ban!" in my book.

I don't want to ban guns either but I can not escape the design factor. We will have to disagree on this as I don't see how you can avoid what something has been made to do. People use products for what they are designed for and guns are built to kill people. Simple as that. Airliners are made to take people from Point A to Point B not to crash into other objects. You look at what something is made for that is what matters, if someone goes outside its purpose than to me it is irrelevant.

I'd like to see you prove that

Already have previously which you even admitted has been done. You made claims about the bows but haven't provided any supprt.

Nice how you avoided the bows being pointed comment just like I said you would.

Countries where firearms are legal are not crime-free paradises. Therefore, arming the population doesn't seem to achieve anything. Likewise, countries where firearms are illegal are not crime-free paradises. Therefore disarming the population doesn't achieve anything either.

The only reason I'm all for keeping guns illegal in the UK is it does at least cut out that small category of crimes comitted with legally-owned weapons by crazy people. I suppose if you're doing someone's wife, you can be pretty safe in the knowledge that the irate husband probably doesn't have a gun.

1)airplane 2)arrow 3)automobile & other motorized transport 4)binding materials- rope,cord,etc. 5)blades 6)bullets 6)crockery 7)hand tools 8) power tools 9)electrical appliances.............need i go on. anything you lay your hands on, whether or not it was designed for it, can be used as a weapon. we have designed some tools to kill simply because we need to.

I don't want to ban guns either but I can not escape the design factor. We will have to disagree on this as I don't see how you can avoid what something has been made to do. People use products for what they are designed for and guns are built to kill people. Simple as that. Airliners are made to take people from Point A to Point B not to crash into other objects. You look at what something is made for that is what matters, if someone goes outside its purpose than to me it is irrelevant.

And has been pointed out, many firearms are NOT DESIGNED TO KILL ANYTHING!!!

Round and round we go.

You state the the "vast majority" of bows are designed for target shooting and an "extreme minority" of firearms are designed as target shooting or sporting.

Both are false as has been shown over and over again.

I could say the same about bows being where you point them but you'll dodge that as well.

There must be many more hunters out there than I could ever have imagined if you are saying there are many more guns used to shoot at animals and targets than there are for guns designed to shoot at people. I must say that this sounds, well, untrue.

There must be many more hunters out there than I could ever have imagined if you are saying there are many more guns used to shoot at animals and targets than there are for guns designed to shoot at people. I must say that this sounds, well, untrue.

And now you go into the numbers of firearms produced to move the goalposts.

Your imagination has already been shown to be lacking so that is no surprise.

People use products for what they are designed for and guns are built to kill people. Simple as that. Airliners are made to take people from Point A to Point B not to crash into other objects.

And yet "people use" airplanes to "crash into other objects."

And to drop bombs, missiles, rockets on people.

Airplanes are *undeniably* weapons. Whether you say they are "designed" that way is utterly and totally irrelevant to the fact that they ARE weapons.

You look at what something is made for that is what matters, if someone goes outside its purpose than to me it is irrelevant.

Yeah, well I don't think you'd feel it's very irrelevant if you were plummeting 40 storeys from the WTC.

And now you go into the numbers of firearms produced to move the goalposts.

Your imagination has already been shown to be lacking so that is no surprise.

No ones moving the goalposts. We stated the case of most guns being made to kill, not for anything else. You stated that the case was the other way round. Now prove it.