Crazy Computer Nuts Walk Free!

Post Reply New Topic

Guns are designed to kill. Computers are not. They can be programmed to do so though. Computers help Obama deploy killer robots all over the world. Cars can also kill. They aren't designed for that though. Cars are regulated. Dear me, how dare they!

Firearms are designed to hurl metallic ballistea down a barrel at high speed. I have shot thousands of rounds of rifle ammo and I never killed a single person with my rifle. I put a lot of holes in paper targets though, and I did a little "plinking" of cans (in a safe area with no people or animals down range).

You could also make the same accusation pertaining to cross-bows, bows, and javelins. Cross-bows were originally designed to kill. The rarely kill anyone these days.

ruveyn

Their intent is to make money like any other manufacturer.
Gee, that was easy.

When a carpenter or a construction craftsman does as bad job we do not blame his tools. We blame his workmanship.

ruveyn

So, why are most mass-murders committed with the use of the firearm? There are plenty of other methods that work more effectively and higher profile than using a firearm, and yet, it is the firearm that is used time and time and time again...
When was the last school bombing in the US?
When was the last school poison attack in the US?
When was the last school gas attack?

All these other weapons were created to kill and yet they are rarely used. Why?

It is just guns.

They are not going to marry you. Nor provide you income unless you work at a circus.

So, why worry that much about them as to make up silly arguments such as this one? It is of course not guns that cause violent deaths. But it is a no brainer that guns make whoever intends to cause violent deaths more efficient. Heck, the whole invention of guns was with that objective in mind: To make killings more efficient.

Stabbing is inefficient because of close range, you only get one target before anyone else runs away. Because you need to get close it is far riskier too.

Crossbows? Don't make me laugh. They are much harder to use and have much more ammo and portability limitations than guns.

It is extremely short-sighted to pretend that easier access to guns has not made the violent killing issue worse than it could have been.




If there is something that would easily make anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity to note that there is a huge false equivalency issue here. Consider the self-defense nuts? If knives/cars/computers were remotely as efficient and effective as guns, then these badasses that really believe that they would be able to save lives and themselves from mooks would be more than happy to just use knives/cars/computers to defend themselves against Thugs. You would have it way easy to defend yourself against the tyranny of the King of britain using your kitchen knives and your Wolkswagens.

That image is linked to the BBC, right? So that's the source of the photo and figures?

If so, I'm utterly amazed...I expected Switzerland to have a murder rate of 0.0 per 100,000 due to the way the pro-gun crowd are singing the praises of Switzerland. 0.8 - the second highest of the twelve listed on the right and by 0.3% higher as well. Hardly the bastion of responsibility they've claimed.

Then again, they are desperate, so I really shouldn't be too surprised.

Worth noting that, if recent surveys are anything to go buy, the vast majority of gun-related deaths in Switzerland are suicides and accidents.

Switzerland has about the same gun murder rate with guns as Canada, Malta and Portugal (and decidedly less than Israel, Luxembourg, Serbia and Croatia), and guns are everywhere in Switzerland and are given to men as part of their military service, which they keep their whole lives.

Why would someone need to hurl these metallic ballistea down a barrel at high speed? The reason is to kill, be it people or animals for hunting. That's why it exists. The problem is how to kill more effectively, the answer was the gun. I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out.

High speed, long range and a great target sport. I grant that firearms originated as weapons of destruction and death, but that is not their only use. I will wager more rounds are expended at fire arm ranges where one develops his skill than are expended in shooting people to death. Well... maybe not. We are still involved in wars overseas. But that is not murder, that is warfare.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 04 Feb 2013, 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's right, we blame his actions, and not his tools.

Same for a surgeon who loses a patient on the table. Do we blame her scalpel? No, we blame her, and file a malpractice suit.

What about the guy that plows into a crowd of people at an open-air market? Do we arrest the car manufacturer or the driver? The driver, of course, because he is supposed to be in control (even if he is ripping drunk).

What about the food manufacturer that sells tainted beef? Do we blame the grinding machine, or do we blame the manufacturer?

The day that scalpels, automobiles, and meat grinders are outlawed is the day that handguns should be outlawed, too.

I mean, if we're going to be stupid about it, then let's be stupid about everything involved in a person's death!

Why do some people insist on talking about the number of homicides committed using firearms? Whether someone is stabbed or shot, they still end up dead...

Now, if we look at the countries according to their homicide rate...

Do remember please that school shootings are a tiny fraction of the overall homicide rate, even if they make the news whilst just as many students getting killed outside of school doesn't...

Also, it seems that New Hampshire is the safest place to be in terms of homicide rate in the US, and Washington DC is the most dangerous. Now, lets compare their firearms law, shall we...?

So, do look at the facts before trying to argue for gun control.

Just think if kids like Adam Lanza didn't have access to guns, would he still have been able to do what he did even without that gun he had in his hands? Would so many lives still have been lost as a result?

What do those who oppose gun control propose should be done to prevent/reduce such issues?

Just think, if the people who use guns to defend themselves against home invaders didn't have guns, how many lives might have been lost? What do those who propose gun control propose should be done to reduce/prevent such issues?

I feel I must point out that the Newtown shootings, as tragic as they were, represent a drop in the bucket when it comes to the total number of homicides committed last year. If 26 people else would have died if they hadn't had weapons to defend themselves with, it would balance out. These are peoples children that get killed because their parents can't defend them.

Let me guess, those home invaders had guns as well?