Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If guns were made illegal everywhere.

Page 4 of 15 [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

If guns were made illegal everywhere.
The world would be more safe, because there would be less gun crime. 23%  23%  [ 16 ]
The world would be less safe, because only criminals would have them and the law abiding would have no protection. 39%  39%  [ 28 ]
It would make no difference. 20%  20%  [ 14 ]
I'm really not sure how it would be. 18%  18%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 71

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

29 Jul 2012, 5:45 pm

aSKperger wrote:
Quote:
Guns are acted upon, they do not act on their own or take control of people's minds.

true, so how do we check if someone is responsible and can possess guns?

Read this. Congress and the ATF is way ahead of you.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Jul 2012, 6:34 pm

guns are designed to put holes in things, and if some of those things are sentient beings, c'est la vie. :roll:



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,868
Location: London

29 Jul 2012, 6:35 pm

Dox47 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
They are designed to kill.


Hi, gun designer here, and, um, you're kinda completely wrong about that. Guns are designed to be accurate, durable, reliable, visually pleasing, etc, but they are not "designed to kill" simply by virtue of being weapons. Guillotines, gibbets, gas chambers, electric chairs, those things are designed to kill, guns are designed to project force according to the will of the wielder, or as I like to say, to propel a lump of lead down a long tube in as straight a line as possible in as mechanically repeatable a way as possible.

Guillotines aren't designed to kill, they are designed to make a sharp object fall as quickly as possible.

Gas chambers aren't designed to kill, they are designed to release toxic airbourne substances or vapours into an airtight container.

Electric chairs aren't designed to kill, they are designed to pass a high-voltage current through something.
Raptor wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Quote:
…..then there are those who think guns are good despite the deaths they cause but think they should only be used if absolutely necessary. That quote was one guy on Omegle, but I've seen similar expressions from others.

They don’t cause deaths any more than forks and spoons cause obesity. They are tools, not living breathing entities. If a drunk driver runs over someone do you blame the car or the drunk driver?

Reductio ad absurdium.

Guns are weapons, not tools like forks or spoons or cars (or alligators). They are designed to kill.


How did gators get into this? A gator acts on it's own. You're grasping at straws now.
Guns are acted upon, they do not act on their own or take control of people's minds.
It could not be any simpler.

"A gun is not a weapon Marge. It's a tool, like a butcher knife, or a harpoon gun, or, erm, an alligator"
- Homer Simpson.



Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

29 Jul 2012, 7:24 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Guillotines aren't designed to kill, they are designed to make a sharp object fall as quickly as possible.

Gas chambers aren't designed to kill, they are designed to release toxic airbourne substances or vapours into an airtight container.

Electric chairs aren't designed to kill, they are designed to pass a high-voltage current through something.

Is this bow and all its parts (including the arrow) designed to kill things or designed to hit a target as accurately as possible at a fixed distance?

Your analogies are cute, but aren't applicable.

Image



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Jul 2012, 8:15 pm

Burzum wrote:
Your analogies are cute, but aren't applicable.

"Wherner von Braun": "I'll sing you a tale/Of Wherner Von Braun/A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience/...'Once the rockets are up/Who cares where they come down?/That's not my department,' says Wherner Von Braun" [tom lehrer]



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

29 Jul 2012, 10:09 pm

aSKperger wrote:
Quote:
Guns are acted upon, they do not act on their own or take control of people's minds.

true, so how do we check if someone is responsible and can possess guns?


The long and short of it is that we don't know. It's one of those risks in life that we take when we get out of bed to face the day.
Prepare yourself accordingly for that risk as well as all the others and soldier on.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

29 Jul 2012, 10:17 pm

Burzum wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Guillotines aren't designed to kill, they are designed to make a sharp object fall as quickly as possible.

Gas chambers aren't designed to kill, they are designed to release toxic airbourne substances or vapours into an airtight container.

Electric chairs aren't designed to kill, they are designed to pass a high-voltage current through something.

Is this bow and all its parts (including the arrow) designed to kill things or designed to hit a target as accurately as possible at a fixed distance?

Your analogies are cute, but aren't applicable.

Image

That thing is hardcore. [drool]

Personally, though, I wouldn't mind settling for one without the sights. When dealing with primitive weapons, there really is such a thing as too perfect. To me, a bow like that is just too pretty to shoot. When talking about pistols, there's a reason why the guns you see in actual use are made out of plastic with textured grips rather than 6-shooters with pearl handles.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

29 Jul 2012, 11:19 pm

If you saw my aptitude with a bow, you guys would think twice about the ability of the bow itself to kill things or even hit a paper target! :lol:
The same applies to others when it comes to guns.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

29 Jul 2012, 11:34 pm

Burzum wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Guillotines aren't designed to kill, they are designed to make a sharp object fall as quickly as possible.

Gas chambers aren't designed to kill, they are designed to release toxic airbourne substances or vapours into an airtight container.

Electric chairs aren't designed to kill, they are designed to pass a high-voltage current through something.

Is this bow and all its parts (including the arrow) designed to kill things or designed to hit a target as accurately as possible at a fixed distance?

Your analogies are cute, but aren't applicable.

I think you missed his point.

Raptor wrote:
It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.

This argument is valid for, say, keeping a set of spare keys. I don't think it applies to guns, because the hypothetical consequences of acquiring and keeping the gun are not the same as with the keys.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

29 Jul 2012, 11:35 pm

John_Browning wrote:
If you saw my aptitude with a bow, you guys would think twice about the ability of the bow itself to kill things or even hit a paper target! :lol:
The same applies to others when it comes to guns.


A lot quieter, too.
I picked up an old re-curve, a Ben Pearson Cougar, at a garage sale with all the accessories cheap.
It's at least something I can shoot in my back yard here in the suburbs.
There were actually two bows that I got in that package but the other one is un-marked. It's made of fiberglass and appears to be older than the Cougar.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

29 Jul 2012, 11:56 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.

This argument is valid for, say, keeping a set of spare keys. I don't think it applies to guns, because the hypothetical consequences of acquiring and keeping the gun are not the same as with the keys.

The argument is only different if you attribute some mystical powers of mind control to a gun as if it's like Sauron's one ring to rule them all, and the only way to be free from it's influence is to have Frodo carry the gun on an epic journey to enter Mordor and throw it into the fires of Mount Doom! :skull:

In the real world, you'd store the gun(s) similar to your spare keys.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Jul 2012, 11:57 pm

it's nice to see that everybody is talking past each other as usual.



ButterflyLady
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 146
Location: Gainesville, FL

30 Jul 2012, 12:22 am

nominalist wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
yes but our criminal fascistic government would be the only armed ones then


Acting against the government is treason.

what the hell do you think our founding fathers did when they claimed their independence.? the Constitution was actually being written before the war was won! I don't give a damn if it is treason. i will fight for my freedom even if that means another civil war is started in my fight!!


_________________
Do I stress you out My sweater is on backwards and inside out And you say how appropriate
Your Aspie score: 151 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 55 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie


enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

30 Jul 2012, 1:12 am

John_Browning wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.

This argument is valid for, say, keeping a set of spare keys. I don't think it applies to guns, because the hypothetical consequences of acquiring and keeping the gun are not the same as with the keys.

The argument is only different if you attribute some mystical powers of mind control to a gun as if it's like Sauron's one ring to rule them all, and the only way to be free from it's influence is to have Frodo carry the gun on an epic journey to enter Mordor and throw it into the fires of Mount Doom! :skull:

In the real world, you'd store the gun(s) similar to your spare keys.

In the real world, the gun is basically useless (unlike the keys), and this uselessness is of such a scale that I don't know why I even have to mention that the gun is dangerous (unlike the keys).



Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

30 Jul 2012, 1:16 am

enrico_dandolo wrote:
I think you missed his point.

I don't think so. He claimed guns are designed to kill things, which is patently false as one can buy a gun and take up sport shooting without the intention of ever pointing it at a living thing. I used bows as an analogy - bows, like guns, can be used as effective killing devices, but if you ever tried to hunt with a bow set up for target shooting you would fail comically. They aren't designed solely for killing.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

30 Jul 2012, 1:34 am

Burzum wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
I think you missed his point.

I don't think so. He claimed guns are designed to kill things, which is patently false as one can buy a gun and take up sport shooting without the intention of ever pointing it at a living thing. I used bows as an analogy - bows, like guns, can be used as effective killing devices, but if you ever tried to hunt with a bow set up for target shooting you would fail comically. They aren't designed solely for killing.

the real point that was missed by many here, is that there are crazy numbers of people being ventilated by guns, and that it is morally bankrupt to just say "that's life in the big city" and leave it at that.