Shooting at Empire State Building.

Pretty sure hot glue guns, light guns and squirt guns don't fit the profile of delivering "a pointed piece of metal .45 inches in diameter at just under supersonic velocities in the direction that it was pointed."


So no. Not really.
You quoted-
The purpose of guns is to deliver a projectile at speed to a remote target. The purpose of bullets is to be delivered by a gun at speed to a remote target. Neither has the sole design purpose of killing people.
When does a glue gun "deliver a projectile at speed to a remote target"?
Nail guns do just that, and if you didn't know, now you do.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

Guns were designed by people to kill other people.
Now argue what Wikipedia, meaning the rest of the world, has to say about what firearms were designed for instead of using some other users idea about guns.
 
Last edited:
since you are so positive that the only purpose of guns is killing:


Please point out where I said that. Given that you're never wrong and everything you say is cold hard fact, you should be able to come up with the answer.

Remember,

You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

I admit, I asked a stupid question that I didn't see was already answered, but that's no reason to put words in my mouth.
 
Last edited:
You are right.

But no one wants to eliminate nail guns.
No one is talking about them either, just look into the context here.
A .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun only has one purpose.
Yes, to fire a bullet.

Well...

klien2b7en.jpg


*cough*

This whole time, I was using them wrong.

Next time I'll have to avoid clicking on the first image I see.

I believe some weapons are built for the sole purpose of killing humans.
I'm sure some weapons were conceived with the intent to cause death, but I'm sure that that has no impact on what the average gun carried by the average Joe is supposed to do. They were designed to launch projectiles, and their owners wanted that for their own reasons.

To say that guns, as in all of them, were designed to kill is ridiculous. Don't forget to be careful in using the term designed as well. Every gun was designed to fire a bullet, and that in turn was desirable for various reasons that vary on a case by case basis.
 
With the sole purpose of killing. Guns fire projectiles, some hold wood together, others kill people. The one used outside the Empire State building was meant to kill people, and it did.

Have you read the first 6 pages of this thread?

Also, you seem to like linking to statistics. Here's some more.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

As said before, the Jet engine was originally designed for military use to aid its user in killing people, just like the firearm. Is the purpose of the Jet Engine to kill people? The ones on 747's?
 
MÜLE_9242;7537143
Please point out where I said that.
MÜLE_9242;7536510
Saying that guns aren't designed to kill things is just plain silly.
So:
MÜLE_9242;7537143
Given that you're never wrong and everything you say is cold hard fact, you should be able to come up with the answer.
Yep. Seems that way.


When does a glue gun "deliver a projectile at speed to a remote target"?
Nail guns do just that, and if you didn't know, now you do.
The only one who keeps making this ridiculous "firearms are different from guns" argument is you, I'm afraid. I'm not entirely sure why you keep doing it, but I merely pointed out three examples where your original argument doesn't work.
 
As said before, the Jet engine was originally designed for military use to aid its user in killing people, just like the firearm. Is the purpose of the Jet Engine to kill people? The ones on 747's?
I, like most Americans, am a fan of the TSA and am for regulating who can gain access to a 747. Get my drift?
The only one who keeps making this ridiculous "firearms are different from guns" argument is you, I'm afraid. I'm not entirely sure why you keep doing it, but I merely pointed out three examples where your original argument doesn't work.
You picked 3 things that don't apply to the line you quoted.
So I don't see anything you have said to me that makes sense.
 
I, like most Americans, am a fan of the TSA and am for regulating who can gain access to a 747. Get my drift?

Yes. You decided to spout some utterly irrelevant nonsense. Reread what I posted then answer this question:

Are jet engines designed by people to kill people?
 
You picked 3 things that don't apply to the line you quoted.
So I don't see anything you have said to me that makes sense.
I quoted that line for no reason other than to make it clear that this discussion had already happened on the first page of this thread. You were the one who decided to take "gun" and act as if it had a different meaning from "firearm," and you did it well before I even responded to you. Any confusion on your part is simply because you are twisting the word so Famine's post fits your argument and not understanding that if you want to treat guns as a general term than it doesn't fit your argument. Because of those three things I listed.
 
So people never shoot to simply "stop" the advance? Like by injuring the assailant? For Sport or recreation?

I don't mean to offend, but that is a outlandish claim.
I'm all for bb guns to target shoot with. And I doubt anyone shooting at an assailant is aiming to injure them.
Yes. You decided to spout some utterly irrelevant nonsense. Reread what I posted then answer this question:

Are jet engines designed by people to kill people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_jet_engine
 
Pasting a Wikipedia link doesn't answer his question either.



Edit: And shooting to defend is not in any way automatically the same thing as shooting to kill.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for bb guns to target shoot with. And I doubt anyone shooting at an assailant is aiming to injure them.
You are "all" for bb guns for target shooting? That's the answer for rest of us in the country? What's next? You are "all" for hybrids and Civics, so we should ban SUVs & sports cars? What else should we rule according to your philosophy in life? No fast food, because they are deadly? Come on now.

And your claim about shooting an assailant is absolutely false. Granted, there are PLENTY who would shoot-to-kill in a self-defense situation. However, people simply shoot to stop the advance of the attacker all the time. Do you not watch the news? If your fantasy actually came true, can you imagine the tax money Americans would be able to save by cutting back on the operational cost of the prison system? Just tell the cops to go for the kill. Don't worry about taking suspect alive. Every time you draw your gun, just put him down. :dopey:
 
You are "all" for bb guns for target shooting? That's the answer for rest of us in the country? What's next? You are "all" for hybrids and Civics, so we should ban SUVs & sports cars? What else should we rule according to your philosophy in life? No fast food, because they are deadly? Come on now.
I'm for the general welfare of our posterity and regulating everything that empirically goes against that idea... like guns.
 
I'm for the general welfare of our posterity and regulating everything that empirically goes against that idea... like guns.

So besides dodging several questions, you also seem to have willfully ignored the data I linked for you as well as the logic posted by other members.

Doing this and posting links to an open-source web-encyclopedia without context are not conducive to a long and happy experience on this forum, nor any good discussion.
 
Actually, there was a shooting at the Empire State Building. And then there was the inevitable gun control argument. And then WikiUser used Wikis to "support" his trivial "arguments." That's all I've gathered from this thread. And that jet engines were made solely to kill people depending on who you ask.
 
Last edited:
No, that's how things go on this forum, immediate repression of opinions.

On topic, disturbed working relationships apparently can be very dangereous. It starts with small things and can grow into something big over time. Sad thing really.

Work is sometimes considered too important. I know that in the challangeing world we live in, achievements are for many people a goal in itself.

I think less competition would be good to improve the atmosphere and thus less frustrations.

Perhaps indeed previously banned.

Can we now get back on topic and discuss how people in working relationships can get as low as killing collegues?
 
What happened here? A user got banned because of having a different opinion?

You seriously have to ask that? Seriously?

Wow.

When have you ever seen anyone on GTP banned for having a different opinion (that didn't in some way involve breaking the law or abusing people)? In the Opinions forum...
 
Well, I could be wrong here, but I seems that people who have a different opinion about privatly owning a gun are being supressed.
 
If we were "suppressing" or "repressing" opinions, we would be deleting and editing posts that disagreed or banning the members who do so, so as to prevent them being seen.

This is an opinions forum. It's a medium for discussing opinions. Discussing them - even disagreeing with them - is not suppression/repression, it's discussion. If you want to state your opinion outright and not have it questioned, it's best not to do so here.


I'll ask again, when have you ever seen anyone on GTP banned for having a different opinion (that didn't in some way involve breaking the law or abusing people)? Since it's never happened - we simply couldn't get away with it what with all the other staff watching, even if we wanted to (which we don't, which is one of the reasons we're chosen to be staff in the first place) - the answer is never and it's frankly insulting to the entire site to suggest otherwise.
 
Since you already give the answers to questions you ask me, I guess I won't have to bother to do that.

I think that suggesting that I insult the entire site is based on your personal opinion. I just disagree with that. I never did that.
 
You're suggesting the staff can - and do - repress/suppress opinions and ban those who express dissenting ones (which has never happened). If that's not insulting the site I don't know what is.
 
I would think, Sir, that this was what initially derailed the discussion:

Bullets and guns are made for just one purpose.


Back on Topic:
Here’s more info:

Shooter was Jeffrey Johnson, 58, used a .45-calibre pistol, bought in Sarasota, Fla., in 1991. He had served in the U.S. Coastguard in the mid ‘70s. Ballistics results showed he had fired six times - there were two rounds left in the pistol.
He expired from nine police gunshot wounds to the chest; 3 bullets were recovered from his body, 4 bullets exited his body, and 2 are still unaccounted for.

His victim was Stephen Ercolino, 41, former co-worker, shot five times in the head by Johnson. He had also received a non-life-threatening chest wound.
This was a workplace-situation over Johnson, who worked as a clothing designer, being laid-off by the company (Hazan Imports), that had then escalated over the year into aggressive workplace confrontations.
Both Ercolino and Johnson had filed prior complaints to the police about each other.

The two men had grappled in an elevator before moving outside to the sidewalk where Ercolino was then shot. No one else had been shot or injured at this point.
At this point construction foreman, Brian Dillon, called attention to what was happenning, shouted for police, and despite being told by his co-workers to desist, persued the shooter who was walking east down the south side of 33rd street.

NYPD officers, Craig Matthews, 39 years old, and Robert Sinishtaj, 40, both veteran officers with the Force for 15 years, and who had never discharged their guns before, had split seconds to react, and together fired 16 rounds at the shooter. Matthews got off seven rounds, Sinishtaj nine.

Nine pedestrians, in a very crowded location - a bustling sidewalk full of workers heading to their workplaces, suffered injuries, three from bullets, six from fragments, all from police shots. There were bystanders just feet away from the shooter when this happened - any of them could have been taken hostage or injured or killed by the shooter.

Investigations show that Johnson left his apartment at 8.00 A.M. leaving his keys and never planning to return to the home he had been living in; reports say the owner had asked Johnson (who was a sub-tenant) to vacate the premises due to the apartment undergoing renovations. Investigators have found print-material at the apartment pertaining to guns/sniping, etc.

No job. No home. Just a gun and a whole lot of anger.

There is also no doubt the policeman involved will live with this for the rest of their lives.

Many facets of this incident that warrant discussion, apart from the 'thing' used.
 
I would think, Sir, that this was what initially derailed the discussion:

It's the opinion forum.



On topic: I feel sorrow fot the shooter that he was not able to enlighten his anger in another way.
 
Last edited:
What happened here? A user got banned because of having a different opinion?
Apparently you don't know that particular user's history. He was perma-banned a while back and that means the person isn't allowed to sign up with a new account.
 
Back