Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

Thread moved from Random Discussion to Philosophy, Politics and Religion.

Look here, mate.....Ya can't put the genie back in the bottle


Guns exist, they are out there, and SOMEONE is gonna get em. If that someone isn't you than those who do will have the power of God over you.

Didn’t understand all of it but I did get enough of it, I guess.

He thinks if there were no guns there’d be no killing or words to that effect.
By that logic if there were no forks there’d be no fat people.

He personally denounces owning guns for defensive purposes and states that Australian law forbids it. WTF kind of sense does that make? That’s like saying if you don’t want to get hurt in a car accident don’t wear your seat belts.

He believes that guns can and should be done away with as if that’s even possible or desirable.

Last edited by Raptor on 21 Jul 2012, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you hate guns, blame the Chinese. ChiCom invented them some 2000 years ago. The very first gun had no trigger mechanism. It was simply a handheld cannon.

I think people that are so naive as to think guerrilla warfare is ineffective are adorable, too.
Obviousness you don't stand in front of a tank or whatever and try to stop it with a pistol.
What determined groups of guerrilla fighters can, though, do is set booby traps (IED's come to mind), carry out hit and run raids against vulnerable assets or installations, long range precision rifle work against key targets, various harassment and interdiction operations within the limits of resources.
It's not a matter of possibility it's a matter of will.
Word history is full of examples.

1. Chi-Com is Chinese Communist (1949 and later) not the Chinese in general.

2. It was more like 700 AD +/- when the first firearm was invented.

Well, I think gun control has a done a good job of preventing these things from being worse. Fully automatic massacres would be horrible.

In this case the legislative problem is the magazine size. The guy had a 100 round drum on an AR-15. If it had not jammed things would have been even worse. He was finally reduced to using a pistol and people were escaping as he reloaded.

No no. THAT's why they want machine guns, with machine guns they can fight off nuclear war heads.

It's true that asymmetric war is not always a cakewalk. But that is usually because of the nature of the war ("invader's disadvantage"), not because of the weapons each side is using.

Is there really much less difference between an armoured tank and a handgun than there is between an armoured tank and a slingshot? If your argument holds, then it would be almost as easy to fight off the US Army with improvised slingshots. So the really important thing is that the US doesn't pass legislation controlling rubber bands.

Did you just say what I think you said?


Is there a massacre that isn't horrible?
In a safe about 5 ft away from me is a 1904 dated Swedish Mauser as accurate and effective as the day it left the Carl Gustaf factory. With a good vantage point, cover, and ammo I can easily drop people out to 300+ yards until I run of of victims, ammo, or time. I'm not an expert rifleman but at least skilled in the use of them at that distance.
But by you're assertions it wouldn't be "horrible" since it's only a 5 shot bolt action.
The yield of the weapon is determined by the skill of the user and the availability of soft targets, etc...


It's not a matter of or the rightful domain of legislation. If it is then let's regulate eating utensils since they can lead to obesity which is a national healthcare concern and the cause of many untimely deaths.


Probably a bad magazine. I can remember any stoppages with my AR that weren't related to the mag.
Potentially he could have been stopped by someone carrying a pistol under the CCW law or at least made to feel the need to vacate the stage real quick.

Really, how bad do you want to get beat up in this thread?

To be honest, many (not all) of the people I have seen oppose gun control online are precisely the ones who should never be allowed to purchase a gun.

You must believe gun control is actually effective.

To add to that you think people should be barred from firearm purchases based on their personal beliefs.
Whatever.....

I wouldnt presume to describe the images that form in your brain.



Again with your murder fantasies. These loving descriptions come out every time this topic comes up.

Clearly I meant that an automatic weapon such as any kind of LMG could do far worse damage. They are designed to kill and supress large numbers of people. I'm thankful you don't have one and that they would be extremely difficult and expensive for the average mass shooter to aquire. That's good gun control.



This routine is old.

I think a complete ban on public ownership of some of the more deadly weapons makes a lot of sense, because although these massacres will still happen, fewer people will die in them. No one needs a semi-automatic rifle for self-defense. And the U.S. government attempting to take over? How's that going to happen? For one thing, it would require a huge amount of cooperation between government officials, and for another, they'd need a strong army to back them. Considering how the U.S gov has always been elected by the people, to serve the people, I have a hard time imagining such a thing happening. But perhaps I'm just naive(which I doubt in this case).

It is not as effective as it should be.



There is no reason for someone to have an assault weapon. If someone is a hunter, they can buy a hunting rifle.

Why do I have the feeling that the irony of saying these two statements together is lost on you.

You know, there are times at which you can claim giving guns would make our lives better. But... the day close to a shooting is like the worst possible moment you can try making this claim.

Yes, maybe he could have been stopped by a guy who is much of an unstable freak enough to carry a gun to a movie theater. Or maybe the heroic freak would have been the first to die because he is stupid like that. Or maybe the heroic freak would have accidentally shot someone else in his desperate attempts to stop the killer. Or maybe the heroic freak would have killed someone who is not a psychopath but he just confused him at.

Or maybe, the psychopath who killed everyone brought his gun to the movie theater just in case someone else would go crazy and he would be able to save lives. But something in the movie triggered him to go bonkers and start killing people.

On the other hand, albeit guns didn't make this guy go crazy, I am pretty sure his arm helped him in killing people.

Maybe we just have to stop making hypothetical BS up to push an agenda?

And a psycho with an automatic pistol would be worse than a psycho with a normal pistol. I mean, isn't that obvious?