If Guns Kill People...

[Neo Deist]

Saw an awesome sign the other day...

If Guns kill people then:
Cars drive drunk
Pencils misspell words
Spoons make you fat

 

[kaoticprofit]

Saw an awesome sign the other day...

If Guns kill people then:
Cars drive drunk
Pencils misspell words
Spoons make you fat

I'm all for gun ownership but the idea that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a thoughtless argument. It's no different than saying,
"It wasn't the nuke that killed 1,000,000 people, it was the guy who pushed the button."
"Lawnmowers don't cut lawns, people cut lawns."
"Planes don't transport people, people transport people."

I think we should take guns out of the hands of people who believe guns don't kill people. Pianos out of the hands of Musicians who say pianos don't play music, since people have been killed by pianos falling out of windows. And ban women from owning high heal shoes because people have been killed by high heal shoes. So watch out guys if your wife keeps them close by.
I'm surprised at how many people have accepted the half-baked notion that guns Don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm all for gun ownership but the idea that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a thoughtless argument.

It's not necessarily a "slam dunk" argument, but it seems valid to place responsibility for an action on the person who did it, as opposed to blaming inanimate objects for the choices humans make. That's where the gun control advocates tend to make nonsensical arguments, putting the primary focus on the gun, as opposed to the mental state of the person pulling the trigger.

I think the entire gun control debate is nothing more than a huge distraction that liberals and conservatives engage in, just so they don't have to face any of the deeper issues facing society which might explain some of the violent, aberrant behavior we so often see and hear about. Neither side really wants to solve the problem. They just want to keep repeating the same decades-old arguments which obviously haven't changed anyone's minds.

 

[Kemosloby]

Rocks don't stone people, people don't stone people. Anymore, because they have guns.

 

[Neo Deist]

I'm all for gun ownership but the idea that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a thoughtless argument. It's no different than saying,
"It wasn't the nuke that killed 1,000,000 people, it was the guy who pushed the button."
"Lawnmowers don't cut lawns, people cut lawns."
"Planes don't transport people, people transport people."

I think we should take guns out of the hands of people who believe guns don't kill people. Pianos out of the hands of Musicians who say pianos don't play music, since people have been killed by pianos falling out of windows. And ban women from owning high heal shoes because people have been killed by high heal shoes. So watch out guys if your wife keeps them close by.
I'm surprised at how many people have accepted the half-baked notion that guns Don't kill people, people kill people.

You don't sound like a conservative. This is a conservative only area.

 

[Neo Deist]

I'm surprised at how many people have accepted the half-baked notion that guns Don't kill people, people kill people.

That is because the gun by itself is merely a paperweight. A gun is just a tool. I can throw mine off the top of a building, run over it and kick it around and it will not fire.

It takes a person pulling the trigger.

 

[kaoticprofit]

It's not necessarily a "slam dunk" argument, but it seems valid to place responsibility for an action on the person who did it, as opposed to blaming inanimate objects for the choices humans make. That's where the gun control advocates tend to make nonsensical arguments, putting the primary focus on the gun, as opposed to the mental state of the person pulling the trigger.

It's thoughtless and extreme to make the argument that inanimate objects are NOT responsible for the end result of what they were manufactured and intended to be used for. To blame and to compare the end result of guns with other "inanimate objects" makes no sense.

By doing so classifies guns into the same category as tools, poison, accidents, falls, pencils, pianos, cars, pipe wrenches, and high heal shoes, and even things like obesity, drownings, and chocking, and even sex as people have died doing it. You can classify primitive weapons like knives, spears, bows, and swords "as weapons," but you can't put them in the same category as guns. In other words, you don't find a gun case in the women's shoe department. Guns have a classification of their own. There are hand guns, shotguns, rifles, automatic weapons, assault rifles, bb guns, etc. If you go to the government website on firearms you'll see how guns are classified. They are all put in their respective categories.

Things are made with intent and purpose in mind. Everything that's made is perfected as much as possible. The ultimate purpose of a gun is to kill something accurately at long distances away. That logic alone destroys the argument that guns don't kill people when that's what they're intended and perfected to be used for in the first place.

I don't hammer in nails with my handgun and I don't use my hammer to go hunting. And AK47's aren't found in the women's shoe department. However one guy did kill himself by using his loaded 38 as a hammer.

 

[kaoticprofit]

You don't sound like a conservative. This is a conservative only area.

I'm all for the NRA and common sense. I took my first NRA class in the 60's. The phrase, "guns don't kill people people kill people" didn't exist back then.

I voted a straight Republican ticket last month. Why does common sense make you think it's a liberal idea?

 

[Neo Deist]

I'm all for the NRA and common sense. I took my first NRA class in the 60's. The phrase, "guns don't kill people people kill people" didn't exist back then.

I voted a straight Republican ticket last month. Why does common sense make you think it's a liberal idea?

I guess we will let you slide...but read post #6.

 

[kaoticprofit]

I guess we will let you slide...but read post #6.

And my response to that statement was adequately covered in post #7. I just didn't add a paper weight to the list of inanimate objects.

 

[Neo Deist]

And my response to that statement was adequately covered in post #7. I just didn't add a paper weight to the list of inanimate objects.

A gun is a tool. The intent of the user it what makes it a weapon of death. There are more uses for guns than just killing. I am a sport shooter and enjoy knocking clay pigeons down, hitting pop up targets, and even doing trick shots on water balloons.

 

[kaoticprofit]

A gun is a tool. The intent of the user it what makes it a weapon of death. There are more uses for guns than just killing. I am a sport shooter and enjoy knocking clay pigeons down, hitting pop up targets, and even doing trick shots on water balloons.

To say a gun is a tool is misleading. They both have specific purposes and intent has nothing to do with classification. The purpose of target shooting is to use the weapon proficiently, and a weapons first line of purpose is for defense or hunting both for survival.

The intent of the user it what makes it a weapon of death.

Every weapon of death is categorized. You can't classify a paper weight with a weapon that has a primer in a cartridge packed with smokeless or black powder that launches a projectile thousands of feet per second, which was designed to accurately kill something at long distances away. You just can't logically compare the two.

 

[Neo Deist]

To say a gun is a tool is misleading. They both have specific purposes and intent has nothing to do with classification. The purpose of target shooting is to use the weapon proficiently, and a weapons first line of purpose is for defense or hunting both for survival.



Every weapon of death is categorized. You can't classify a paper weight with a weapon that has a primer in a cartridge packed with smokeless or black powder that launches a projectile thousands of feet per second, which was designed to accurately kill something at long distances away. You just can't logically compare the two.

Nope, all wrong. A weapon's purpose is for whatever the owner/user intends it for. Several of mine are for showcase.

 

[Stevicus]

It's thoughtless and extreme to make the argument that inanimate objects are NOT responsible for the end result of what they were manufactured and intended to be used for. To blame and to compare the end result of guns with other "inanimate objects" makes no sense.

I'm not saying it's the best argument that gun rights can make. I just don't agree with your characterization that it's "thoughtless and extreme." It doesn't even matter what category you put it in; it's still an inanimate object no matter how you slice it. Sure, it was manufactured and intended for a specific use, but guns already exist in the world, so we can't put that genie back in the bottle. We can't go back in time and prevent the invention of gunpowder, which would be the only real way to solve the problem at hand.

Because of this, the entire gun control debate always ends up going in circles.

Things are made with intent and purpose in mind. Everything that's made is perfected as much as possible. The ultimate purpose of a gun is to kill something accurately at long distances away. That logic alone destroys the argument that guns don't kill people when that's what they're intended and perfected to be used for in the first place.

But they don't do it by themselves. A human being is required to load it, aim it, and pull the trigger. But why would a human being do that? That's the question we need to ask ourselves, as a society. To focus solely on the gun itself is a distraction and a red herring. I view such arguments as illogical, since it implies that a perfectly normal, well-adjusted, sane, civilized individual would suddenly turn into a homicidal maniac if he or she has access to a gun. That's a ludicrous position to take, in my opinion.

This is a mental health issue, and that's where society needs to focus its attentions. That's what needs to be included in any debate on gun control.

 

[kaoticprofit]

It doesn't even matter what category you put it in; it's still an inanimate object no matter how you slice it.

Yes it does matter what category they're in. Everything does. It matters when you buy a shotgun. Some are 12, 16, or 20 gauge etc. They're all shotguns listed under different classifications. A 410 isn't a gauge but rather a caliber. The intent behind an the use of an inanimate object has nothing to do with its category or its classification. That's what I mean by thoughtless.

 

[kaoticprofit]

Nope, all wrong. A weapon's purpose is for whatever the owner/user intends it for. Several of mine are for showcase.

I supposed that's how the West was won!

 

[kaoticprofit]

This is a mental health issue, and that's where society needs to focus its attentions. That's what needs to be included in any debate on gun control.

This is more than a mental illness issue. By looking at it that way, it would have more to do with people being cowards and being afraid of the others guys gun. We don't take paper weights to use as weapons in war, and most people who commit terror attacks don't use them either. But I can admit, mentally ill people have been known to use some bizarre things to kill people.

When I go out back, I usually don't bring a gun but I should as I've encountered a bear before and my dog did start to go after it. I usually just make a lot of noise as I go along to scare other animals off. I only have one gun right now and that's all I need. If I could afford it I'd get others.

We have a Sig Sauer academy here in NH and I'm all for it. I really liked LaPierre's political add this year. It was awesome. I also think that if the NRA wants to do a better job, they should focus more on training and safety for every gun owner. BECAUSE...

In NH a person is REQUIRED to take an NRA gun safety course before he can buy a hunting license to go hunt squirrels with a 22 cal. You can own the gun, and you don't need the NRA course to shoot the gun unless you take it to go hunting. But a person can buy an AK47 and take it to their apartment no questions asked. There's something wrong with that.

Just because a person is a law abiding citizen who is not mentally ill, that doesn't mean they can be a sensible, safe, responsible gun owner. I think education and training is the best thing for the NRA to promote. If I'm required to take safety course to walk around in the woods with a gun, shouldn't people be required to take one to bring it to their apartment?

 

[ShivaFan]

Actually I have guns - more than one rifle and more than one handgun - specifically for self defense, meaning if I can avoid it I will, but if I have to I will shoot a person to stop them from harming me or my family, I will first take them out at the knees if I only need to stop them but I will even shoot to kill if I have to.

So in my case, the gun is only useful to me to stop or kill or threaten. I do not hunt, I understand those who collect guns for historical interest - for example one of my rifles is a lever action Winchester 30-30 (some think of it as the "rifle that won the west" or a "cowboy gun") and actually even though a late model yet this one is already a collectible made in the USA, but I own it because it is a great rifle and if things got bad, a 30-30 is nothing to mess with, you are dead if I am coming are you for real.

I prefer revolvers, either a .22 LR if I don't want kick or a .38 special. The .22 is good enough for indoor self-defense.

I do not hunt any animal. I do not collect guns for historical value or display them as art. I have guns only for the purpose of self-defense, or if things go completely crazy for offense. Have I ever come close to using deadly force? Yes. One example was about 25 years ago at night some female was outside my front door with a Vietnamese accent knocking, I didn't open the door but asked what she wanted. In broken English she said she wanted to use my phone. I said no. She kept on knocking - I told her there was no way and she was getting aggressive. I got my automatic rifle out after calling the police but not saying anything, just letting them hear what was going on, this was a direct line to the dispatcher and not 911.

I then just sat on the floor with the rest of my family to the back of the house. I said nothing. Just positioned myself next to a couch with the rifle loaded and ready in case they come through the window or try to get through the door. I say "them" because I also spotted a car idling outside with lights off and three males inside of it in the front of my house.

The police could hear the female knocking hard with a stone and saying, "open door, open door! need to use phone!" - the police arrived right away and I saw them with their squad car lights through the blinds, they surrounded the car outside which first tried to drive away. Other police were then looking for the women who ran off as they pulled in. I could hear one cop even shouting at one of the men, "Why are you here? You do not live around here!" on and on. Oddly the cops didn't come to my door for about more than 30 minutes.

Then finally they came, one officer. He told me the people came from city XYZ, long way off, and were going to try and invade my home even with me in it. Two of the men had criminal records, and they caught the women who had run off. There was a handgun hidden in their car. We have strick gun control, but they had a gun and I realized without doubt they were going to try and get into my house and point it at me and my family.

I was glad the cops arrested them. And I was glad I had my rifle ready. I think it would have been the difference of only 5 more minutes, they were going to try and come in as a group, maybe by breaking a window.

Any home invader who breaks in, they are dead.

Today I have infrared and color cameras video taping outside.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes it does matter what category they're in. Everything does. It matters when you buy a shotgun. Some are 12, 16, or 20 gauge etc. They're all shotguns listed under different classifications. A 410 isn't a gauge but rather a caliber.

Yes, but you're missing the point. Are these guns considered intelligent, sentient beings? Or are they inanimate objects? It's either one or the other.

 

[Stevicus]

This is more than a mental illness issue. By looking at it that way, it would have more to do with people being cowards and being afraid of the others guys gun.

I suppose that may be true for those who buy guns for defensive purposes. That's the main reason why many people want to continue to have the right to buy guns. Criminals won't obey any gun control laws, so law-abiding citizens need to have access to firearms in order to defend themselves. The police can't be everywhere at once, so citizens have to fend for themselves.

We don't take paper weights to use as weapons in war,

No, we take planes, tanks, ships, submarines, bombs, missiles, artillery, machine guns - things that most people can't afford and are not allowed to buy.