Guns

[LeMansAid]

guns are designed to kill or wound there is no way this can be denied.

I've never wielded a gun for this purpose or seen anyone personally use a gun for this purpose in the entirety of my life.

Your experience is completely irrelevant in explaining what guns were designed for. This is the kind of deliberate misdirection that makes gun proponents look very foolish. Deal in realities. If the reality is that the gun is an instrument that was designed to kill, so be it. Equally, if the reality is that many guns are used for purposes other than killing, so be it. Then we get to the difficult question of reality: Is a society better or worse off with more or less guns? There is a reality, even if it's difficult or impossible to deduce what it is.

The stuff like: "Today, (insert number here) guns in America were not used to kill someone" also reeks of pathetic misdirection. It shows neither a positive or negative impact, but is used as a positive in the absence of anything that is genuinely so. In comparison: "Today, guns saved (insert number here) lives in America", would be something of actual substance.

I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to know the answer to the question of better or worse off. If asked the question, I'd answer "I'm happy for things to remain as they are, in my country". Australia, that is. Yes, the socialist numbskulls that leave ourselves at constant risk because me, granny, and junior aren't all packing heat.

 

[BobK]

So a high grade match rifle is designed for killing things, not making precisely placed holes in targets? Sheesh, ya learn something every day. Likewise a bolt-action rifle that fires .22 shorts seems particularly ill-designed for going on a murdering spree.

 

[FoolKiller]

Freedom = better. Always.

 

[LeMansAid]

Way to go with the reality challenge BobK. As in the reality of what I'm quite sure you know is really being discussed.

 

[a6m5]

LMA do always seem to bring up interesting points, but is Exorcet's opinion really completely irrelevant when it's true & the reality for most shooters & most firearms in the whole country? As BK added, not all guns are designed to kill. I compare this to automobiles. Automobiles may have been invented as a transport, but now are collectibles, or can be used for racing, off-roading, etc.. How many million firearms are not at all designed to kill human beings, or kill anything?

If you were arguing the origin of firearms, I actually roll with the idea that it was invented as a weapon. However, how familiar can one be with the American firearms & culture associated with it, if you actually believe that all guns are designed to kill? That's just absurd.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So just watched an interview on CNN where a psychiatrist stress that if you have a friend that suddenly becomes interested in buy and owning a gun and buys three boxes of shells (quite a lot claims CNN), you should tell someone. That someone should find an authority figure (law enforcement) and stress that you are worried because they never showed interest for owning a gun prior, so they may be buying it to harm themselves or others...

This notion is almost as stupid as what Biden said a year ago.

 

[LeMansAid]

Well I did also write "Equally, if the reality is that many guns are used for purposes other than killing, so be it." And yes, his opinion is irrelevant to what a/the gun was designed for. Yes, yes, I know I'm going on about this reality thing again.

While a misdirection is in play, it's natural for there to be mistrust. Once any deception is detected, deception may be presumed.

Freedom = better. Always.

With no line to be drawn? So you don't mind me moving to the US and sporting my flamethrower? Just for sports purposes of course. I may have to carry it to and from my sporting arena, on the bus, and through streets etc. I look forward to this freedom thing you speak of.

 

[Imari]

Freedom = better. Always.

So you're OK with my freedom to possess a few kilos of plutonium then? At last, a kindred soul in my quest for world domination!

 

[Swagger897]

So a high grade match rifle is designed for killing things, not making precisely placed holes in targets? Sheesh, ya learn something every day. Likewise a bolt-action rifle that fires .22 shorts seems particularly ill-designed for going on a murdering spree.

Wasn't there some sort of college massacre where students were picked off at 100 yards or so by a Ruger .22? (Great gun, if not the American gun(unless you look at .22 ammo))

 

[a6m5]

Well I did also write "Equally, if the reality is that many guns are used for purposes other than killing, so be it." And yes, his opinion is irrelevant to what a/the gun was designed for. Yes, yes, I know I'm going on about this reality thing again.

While a misdirection is in play, it's natural for there to be mistrust. Once any deception is detected, deception may be presumed.

To me, this is like getting caught up in the fact that Da Vinci just wanted to fly, while totally ignoring realities of air travel today, or how it's used as the most effective delivery system for military tactical payload. It certainly isn't the same thing, but I'm just trying to make a point.

On misdirection, I'm not sure if you are talking about at the media/political level, or in this thread, but I'm of the impression that this is a game both sides are guilty of playing. I've seen/heard ridiculous statements or claims by both sides. My sleeping pill's kicking in, so I'm gonna go. I'm sorry if my post confuse anybody.

 

[LeMansAid]

For me:

Opponents - Commonly guilty of deliberate misinformation.
Proponents - Commonly guilty of deliberate misdirection.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's really a fundamental difference in mindset between the 2 continents, but I understand where you are coming from, If i would live there i bet i would get one also seeing that so much people have them. Over here this is not necessary (and for us not something we need to worry about), so i hope you can understand the European mindset also that we don't want them

You can't speak for a continent, so don't.

Plenty of European nations have a tradition of gun ownership for sport and for hunting. There are also plenty of legally held shotguns in the UK. Switzerland's militia army also leads to a gun being present in many homes.

Don't forget, the UK gun landscape would be far, far different if it wasn't for knee jerk reactions to very specific events.

 

[mister dog]

For me:

Opponents - Commonly guilty of deliberate misinformation.
Proponents - Commonly guilty of deliberate misdirection.

Truth always lays somewhere in the middle doesn't it?

You can't speak for a continent, so don't.

Plenty of European nations have a tradition of gun ownership for sport and for hunting. There are also plenty of legally held shotguns in the UK. Switzerland's militia army also leads to a gun being present in many homes.

Don't forget, the UK gun landscape would be far, far different if it wasn't for knee jerk reactions to very specific events.

I can speak for a continent as there is a general consensus IMO; Europeans will mostly support strict gun control, Americans will mostly oppose it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So you're OK with my freedom to possess a few kilos of plutonium then? At last, a kindred soul in my quest for world domination!

Only if you have some Thorium to spare me

Wasn't there some sort of college massacre where students were picked off at 100 yards or so by a Ruger .22? (Great gun, if not the American gun(unless you look at .22 ammo))

What about .22 ammo?

 

[Azuremen]

With no line to be drawn? So you don't mind me moving to the US and sporting my flamethrower? Just for sports purposes of course. I may have to carry it to and from my sporting arena, on the bus, and through streets etc. I look forward to this freedom thing you speak of.

Don't really see the issue provided you aren't toasting people with it. Or property. Some of us did grow up in communities where gun racks on the back of trucks was normal and people didn't make a scene if someone had a gun with them.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Don't really see the issue provided you aren't toasting people with it. Or property. Some of us did grow up in communities where gun racks on the back of trucks was normal and people didn't make a scene if someone had a gun with them.

Also he can legally own one as long as he has the paperwork the state requires. These people that go to extremes and act like they aren't owned by the general public live in an ever diminishing bubble. Also the gun rack thing is true but I doubt they'll believe you Azureman or think it is some atrocity.

 

[Imari]

Truth always lays somewhere in the middle doesn't it?

I can speak for a continent as there is a general consensus; Europeans will mostly support strict gun control, Americans will mostly oppose it.

There's a sweeping statement if ever I saw one. Got any factual basis for that horrendous generalisation?

 

[king ford III]

When discussing gun control i like to quote Niccolo Machiavelli:
"A Government which does not trust it's citizens to be armed is not itself to be trusted".
If the government has all the guns how will its people be able to rebel if needed? I think that is one of the reasons we are seeing to many looses in fights for freedom in egypt, libya etc. Guns are a protection against political tyranny!

 

[mister dog]

There's a sweeping statement if ever I saw one. Got any factual basis for that horrendous generalisation?

Well for starters look at the differences in laws; most European countries have quite strict gun laws, and do not allow you to carry a gun around on the streets, whilst Americans can do that under circumstances. So it would really surprise me (and that's an understatement); if this "horrendous generalisation" of mine would be wrong, in the sense that Europeans would actually want more liberal gun laws, and a majority of Americans would want stricter control...

You can try and prove me wrong though

 

[Imari]

You can try and prove me wrong though

You know quite well that's not how it works.

 

[mister dog]

You know quite well that's not how it works.

I'm just a rebel .

Don't even know if there has ever been such a poll amongst 'Europeans', so it would be quite hard and time consuming to gather stats from every single European country and compare them (if you could find them).

For the US side i found this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Seems Republicans and democrats balance each other out regarding the subject, and depending on when the poll was taken.

 

[Famine]

Don't even know if there has ever been such a poll amongst 'Europeans', so it would be quite hard and time consuming to gather stats from every single European country and compare them (if you could find them).

Then don't make any such claim.

 

[mister dog]

Then don't make any such claim.

I have the right to state my opinion, without having to base everything on facts and statistics thank you very much.
If you feel better about it, i'll add a "IMO" to that post.

 

[Famine]

I have the right to state my opinion, without having to base everything on facts and statistics thank you very much.

You don't have the right to state other people's opinions, which is what you're doing when you claim to know what all of Europe thinks.

If you want to claim a European viewpoint, provide the facts. Otherwise speak for yourself and yourself alone.


Also, read this.

 

[mister dog]

Also, read this.

Well... that's just an opinion

 

[Imari]

For the US side i found this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

You've just posted a bunch of numbers that show that a significant proportion of US citizens would be for more strict gun control, a significant proportion think it's OK as it is now, and a small proportion think gun controls should be loosened.

Moreover, an overwhelming majority supports background checks.

I'd say from those statistics that the general feeling of US citizens appears to be that the current gun laws are OK, but they wouldn't mind them being a bit stricter. Which isn't at all what you were saying.

 

[mister dog]

You've just posted a bunch of numbers that show that a significant proportion of US citizens would be for more strict gun control, a significant proportion think it's OK as it is now, and a small proportion think gun controls should be loosened.

Moreover, an overwhelming majority supports background checks.

I'd say from those statistics that the general feeling of US citizens appears to be that the current gun laws are OK, but they wouldn't mind them being a bit stricter. Which isn't at all what you were saying.

Background checks are only a part of the topic; wonder how Americans would think if you would wanna tighten up gun laws by not allowing them to carry anymore, but strictly keep their guns in the house just like most European laws state?

Also just look at the laws in place already and the difference between them US vs Europe. You really think the difference in gun laws would be that great between both regions without the peoples consent?

 

[Exorcet]

Your experience is completely irrelevant in explaining what guns were designed for.

I've only ever used guns for their designed purpose. No one ever came up to me at the range and smacked me upside the head because I was shooting targets and not living things. If all guns were designed to kill/injure, it's a wonder that some guns are even produced at all.

This is the kind of deliberate misdirection that makes gun proponents look very foolish. Deal in realities.

The reality is to say a gun is simply a killing tool is to show great ignorance.

If the reality is that the gun is an instrument that was designed to kill, so be it. Equally, if the reality is that many guns are used for purposes other than killing, so be it. Then we get to the difficult question of reality: Is a society better or worse off with more or less guns? There is a reality, even if it's difficult or impossible to deduce what it is.

I've addressed this already, I'm pretty sure. Even if the first gun was created by someone who wanted to inflict harm, that has no bearing on any future gun's purpose. In fact it barely even matters in the case of that first gun. It's a projectile launching mechanism that just so happens to have the ability to kill, but is far from limited to that one task.

Why should we consider at all where the gun came from? Ignoring the whole part about rights, if you want to argue pros and cons then discuss what the gun does for us and what it doesn't. Do debates over internet policies need to account for the military origin of the internet? Are jet liners murder weapons because the first operational jet was a war machine? Those are both true facts, but unless you're s historian, why do they matter?

 

[BobK]

Way to go with the reality challenge BobK. As in the reality of what I'm quite sure you know is really being discussed.

I am challenging the flat statement "guns are designed to kill" which is patently untrue. And that's the reality. If someone wants to argue that some guns are designed to kill, or that the original purpose of guns was to kill, I wouldn't take issue to that. But the blanket statement "guns are designed to kill", no.

I could mention air rifles, pellet guns and paint guns here too, all of which are classified as firearms in some jurisdictions. Is anybody going to try to tell me that a paint gun, which I used to fire at other people and was shot back with as well, are "designed to kill"?

 

[Swagger897]

Only if you have some Thorium to spare me



What about .22 ammo?

Well it used to be $10 for a 550 brick, now it's in some places $30-45 for a small 100 brick...