You support grenades? Okay, next up- rocket launchers? Then, industry grade bombs? Nuclear weapons?
You support grenades? Okay, next up- rocket launchers? Then, industry grade bombs? Nuclear weapons?
A grenade is an explosive, explosives are subject to chemical change and can potentially be harmful just by sitting there.
The gun makes it easier to kill well not exactly. It makes it easier to kill than beating people to death, but a person bent on murder isn't going to respect a law against owning a gun.
Its illegal to smoke marajuana, its illegal to steal cars, people still do this. Making a law will not prevent anything. It oppressed the good people. And does nothing to prevent the bad people from committing the crimes.
Why get so upset? I am just pointing out the critical flaw in any form of gun control. It only controls the people that respect the law. There are jails full of people that don't respect the law.
Laws are not magical spells that zap guns out of existence. Making guns illegal Erroll not do anything there are 300 millon in the united stated. An attempt to illegalize them will have no effect.
If a mechanic rips you off do you blame his wenches or call for wrench control?
Criminal intent respects no law.
The reason I keep using this argument is because you can't debate it. Its a fact guns are just things they don't jump up and kill people.
If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
There is no logic that you can use against this statement. The gun control debate is unequivocally won by that s statement. I am sorry that makes you angry myp but no matter how many posts you make with all caps you can't spin gun control to equal safer streets.
What kinda grenades you seen lately? They don't just blow up sitting there... You think we'd really give all these military personnel grenades if that were the case?
And guns don't require special handling? You are heading into a corner here. I am glad you agree that grenades, rockets, bombs, etc. don't belong in people's hands, but you need to realize that the reason it is a good idea is not because these things automatically cause deaths, but because people can abuse them to cause more death than otherwise possible- just like with guns.
What about my statement.
"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". How do you support outlaws having guns and those that follow the law not having guns?
I am appalled by the illegal use of firearms, but making it so that only criminals can have certain guns seems to be a complete opposite of the rational minds thought process.
Again guns are not bombs they are just hunks of metal dripping them will not make them explode. Improper storage doesn't make them explode.
Guns require a certain level of maturity to handle and own safely.
I agree the abuse of objects or really the use of objects to abuse peace should be and is illegal that goes for any object. But the object didn't cause the problem, it was just used in the act.
I completely agree the people with criminal intent should continue to be criminal. But banning guns only insures that only criminals will have them. So as a relation to control this is a failure.
Improper storage leads to crazy teenager stealing them and killing innocent people. But either way, I am sure there are some explosives that are quite stable in normal storage. Do you want to legalize them? You are drawing a difference between guns and more destructful weapons here that does not make sense. What I say in response though, is that if you think banning bombs saves lives, then in the same way I'll argue that regulating or banning some guns might save lives too. Your hunk of metal argument doesn't work because you yourself think other hunks of metal should be regulated or banned to save lives- bombs.
Now please note that I don't actually want to ban guns- I am just trying to show you why your argument doesn't hold as much water as you think it does. Yes, we need to focus on mental health services to help those who commit this sort of crime before they do it, but regulating the capabilities can help too- at least theoretically.
Sorry, but the world doesn't work in a way in which you get to decide what weapons the government has
But I assume you still want them to have some sophisticated bomb tech for wars, etc. right? If so, it is quite scary to me that you want civilians to be able to have that too. Newtown will be nothing if that happens- to me that is quite scary.
I know the founders intent with the 2nd amendment, but during their time there were no where near the sophistication and deadliness of the weapons we have today. It is a different ballgame. Without military/police personnel on the civilian side, I don't think a large scale revolt could work even if you had all the weapons they had (minus nukes). And if you have the military/police on the civilian side, you get the weapons with it
But again, I don't like that scenario. Again, times have changed a lot. The founders lived in the time where democracy was an infant and a much smaller portion of the world's people believed in its success. They were under greater threat of revolts, etc. We are at a stage where things are much more stable. We are also at a point in history where the usefulness of even pacifist movements has led to tremendous political change- even without escalation into war. I think there are better methods that starting a civil war even if we all decide to overthrow the government.
Bombs are not hunks of metal, they are explosive chemistry so yes my hunk of metal argument does work. If a boom required a second component that was regulated to make it deadly then your argument would work. Aside from sodium I don't know of any metal that is explosive. But thus is beyond the point because the steel and aluminum and plastic that guns are made of is inert. It requires a bully be inserted deliberately with intent into a gun deliberately with intent aimed deliberately with intent and fired deliberately with intent.
It is intent that makes a gun dangerous not its priorities, so something external from the gun itself has to occur unless you are indeed suggesting that guns jump up and load themselves and jump into would be assaults hands and compel the assailant to just go murder people.
Guns improperly stored didn't lead to sandy hook shooting, negligence and murderous intent did.
Here is another fundamental flaw with your notion and I have repeated this several times.
If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, weather it is scary black ones, or all of them.
But the bullets don't magically get in the gun nor does it magically point at people no does it magically fire.
I am only messing your condescending crap with equally commanding crap.
When you buy a gun it doesn't come with bullets already in it, you actually have to load it intentionally.
A bomb doesn't magically go off either
No, but it doesn't need bullets and to be pointed to do damage. it doesn't need to even be intentionally triggered.
The handling of an explosive is more dangerous because it is a constantly loaded gun pointed in every direction.
A gun is a far more precise weapon and can be juggled, stored in an oven set to 500° f for a decade, pointed in every direction and not be deadly so long is there is no bullets in it.
It is just a hunk of metal, any fear of it is due to ignorance only.
A gun does not have to be intentionally triggered either.
But now you are starting to make the argument that bombs are simply more dangerous. Good, we are making progress. Now you are starting to admit the danger of a bomb is what matters even though it is people that use it. A parallel argument might be that the danger of a gun matters even though it is people that use it.
Your ignorance is showing, guns don't just shoot.
A gun is only dangerous if first it is loaded, unloaded guns don't shoot, they can't because there is no primer for the firing pin to strike, there is no spark created by the primer being struck so the powder that isn't there can't ignite in a non existent cartage causing phantom gasses to expand against the invisible projectile. So no find don't go off that is so incredibly ignorant.
Second lets say you accadentally open the action and previously drop a bullet into the chamber and your thumb slips to close the action. No phantoms can pull the trigger. Without that trigger being pulled the gun can't fire unless you have tampered with the sear mechanism so previously on accadent. So as to destroy the gun
If you obey the the rules 1) (most importantly) point the gun in a safe direction. 2) keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. 3) keep the gun unloaded until you are ready to use it. There will be no accidents. An expansion on rule three assume all guns are loaded.
There follow those three rules nobody would ever die from gunfire again. ignorance of these rules and of the function of the gun is the gadfly of the actor, not the gun. you must seek training if you don't know otherwise if an accident occurs the negligent party is at fault.
Your habit of continually telling people they are ignorant makes you look quite silly.
Fundamentally I think I have shown why guns are inherently no different than bombs when it comes to the argument you are trying to make ("guns don't kill people, people kill people, so don't regulate guns"). You either don't see it or hate to admit you are wrong, but I think most people do see it and that is enough for me. I don't feel like explaining this further to you. At least not right now.
Fundamentally I think I have shown why guns are inherently no different than bombs when it comes to the argument you are trying to make ("guns don't kill people, people kill people, so don't regulate guns"). You either don't see it or hate to admit you are wrong, but I think most people do see it and that is enough for me. I don't feel like explaining this further to you. At least not right now.
Similar threads
