Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sadly, that will keep happening as long as there will be weapons and stupid people.

A gun doesn't protect. Its sole purpose is to kill (or at least maim).

Someone said killers aren't unarmed. That's right. Funny that a lot of "good americans" are armed, isn't it?

Next time, burglars will attack with rocket launchers before taking the money from the ruins. Then it will be fine to equip your house with automatic turrets firing at everything moving in a 30 m perimeter.

Honestly, I think a nuclear missile would be much better in my garden. Just in case, you know.

Coming out of the wood works tonight.

 Sarouan wrote:
Sadly, that will keep happening as long as there will be weapons and stupid people.

A gun doesn't protect. Its sole purpose is to kill (or at least maim).

Someone said killers aren't unarmed. That's right. Funny that a lot of "good americans" are armed, isn't it?

Next time, burglars will attack with rocket launchers before taking the money from the ruins. Then it will be fine to equip your house with automatic turrets firing at everything moving in a 30 m perimeter.

Honestly, I think a nuclear missile would be much better in my garden. Just in case, you know.

Do you suppose it is the gun causing people to kill, or the person causing the gun to kill? Perhaps the problem with murder in America isn't the guns, but Americans? I mean, violence is kind of the closest thing to culture here. Celebrated wars, hollywood, video games, music... it kind of saturates our everyday lives. Then when it happens you have 24 hour news providing an echo chamber for it. Given how fickle and unhinged many people are, sometimes I'm genuinely amazed the numbers aren't higher.

I mean, Americans are creatures of convenience, but consider it: If you've really talked yourself into taking a life, wouldn't you do it with whatever you had available to you?

 daedalus wrote:

I mean, Americans are creatures of convenience, but consider it: If you've really talked yourself into taking a life, wouldn't you do it with whatever you had available to you?

Maybe. But it can also be argued that making it easier to kill someone (legally or illegally), especially in a way that is safer for the person doing the killing, makes it more likely that someone will get killed.

A person wanting to kill someone might think twice if he has to get close enough to get hurt himself while doing so. I can try to stab you, at the risk of getting into a physical fight resulting in me getting disarmed and hurt myself, or I can shoot you from 10 feet away with minimal risk to myself.

Maybe I'm in some sort of gun-owning minority here, but that's one of the big reasons why I have guns. Yes they are fun to shoot and yes they are fun to collect, I'm not going to deny that. But guns also makes it totally easier to hurt someone and that's the self-defense reason for having them. If someone breaks into my house or threatens me on the street I want to be able to defend myself in the most effective way possible and with the lowest risk to myself. A gun gives me that option.

I'm not saying that guns make people killers, but a gun does make it easier to kill people. I think as responsible gun owners we do need to acknowledge that guns are a very dangerous tool that increase the risk of someone getting hurt. We might be okay with that risk (stuff like having a gun in the house increasing the risk that someone might get injured due to a negligent discharge) because we feel that the chance of protecting our family with it is greater than the chance of our family getting hurt by it, but we need to acknowledge that the risk exists.

I know this is a bit of a rant, and it's not really directed at you. But I feel like sometimes folks act as if having a gun in the house is no more dangerous than having a hammer in the house and I think that gun owners as a group end up loosing credibility with statements like that.

 d-usa wrote:

I know this is a bit of a rant, and it's not really directed at you. But I feel like sometimes folks act as if having a gun in the house is no more dangerous than having a hammer in the house and I think that gun owners as a group end up loosing credibility with statements like that.

Hey, I agree with you (and I recognize you're not directing the comment at me). I don't know if it's more dangerous than a garage full of eviscerating power tools. I have no counter for your range argument. That's a valid point.

Incidentally enough, I'm that crazy minority that has zero problems with anyone owning guns and yet doesn't own one myself. I mean, idiots might cause accidents with guns, but I'm just far more scared of the many orders of magnitude more of them that send several ton bullets on wheels down the interstate every day than I am of other nuts.

 daedalus wrote:


Do you suppose it is the gun causing people to kill, or the person causing the gun to kill? Perhaps the problem with murder in America isn't the guns, but Americans? I mean, violence is kind of the closest thing to culture here. Celebrated wars, hollywood, video games, music... it kind of saturates our everyday lives. Then when it happens you have 24 hour news providing an echo chamber for it. Given how fickle and unhinged many people are, sometimes I'm genuinely amazed the numbers aren't higher.

I mean, Americans are creatures of convenience, but consider it: If you've really talked yourself into taking a life, wouldn't you do it with whatever you had available to you?

I'd say it's quite a lot of both. A lot of posts by americans on dakka seem to put death as an easy solution to a problem. "kill them, nuke them" with a disturbing regularity, more so than other countries.I must say it was quite confronting to read when I first started reading it as i had never dealt with a bloodthirsty collective( the best term I can come up with) before . The height of this ideal is to me drone attacks which are horrific in every sense. I don't want the discussion to derail, just wanted to state how i feel this death dealing as a solution ends up.

What does it take to talk yourself into taking a life? Someone stealing your property? Scary.

THe fact that there is a law that was tried to be used to defend murder of an unarmed person by a person waiting in ambush? petrifying.

 Bullockist wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Do you suppose it is the gun causing people to kill, or the person causing the gun to kill? Perhaps the problem with murder in America isn't the guns, but Americans? I mean, violence is kind of the closest thing to culture here. Celebrated wars, hollywood, video games, music... it kind of saturates our everyday lives. Then when it happens you have 24 hour news providing an echo chamber for it. Given how fickle and unhinged many people are, sometimes I'm genuinely amazed the numbers aren't higher.

I mean, Americans are creatures of convenience, but consider it: If you've really talked yourself into taking a life, wouldn't you do it with whatever you had available to you?

I'd say it's quite a lot of both. A lot of posts by americans on dakka seem to put death as an easy solution to a problem. "kill them, nuke them" with a disturbing regularity, more so than other countries.I must say it was quite confronting to read when I first started reading it as i had never dealt with a bloodthirsty collective( the best term I can come up with) before . The height of this ideal is to me drone attacks which are horrific in every sense. I don't want the discussion to derail, just wanted to state how i feel this death dealing as a solution ends up.

What does it take to talk yourself into taking a life? Someone stealing your property? Scary.

THe fact that there is a law that was tried to be used to defend murder of an unarmed person by a person waiting in ambush? petrifying.

Why is it petrifying? The law didn't defend him. It's like saying someone trying to use a stapler to open a stuck jar is petrifying.

 djones520 wrote:


Why is it petrifying? The law didn't defend him. It's like saying someone trying to use a stapler to open a stuck jar is petrifying.

Because he thought it would. If he hadn't thought that it would protect him, would he have still killed the kid?

This is a case where there needs to be clear lines about what is and isn't covered by such laws and a system to educate people about these laws. Perhaps a program where every five years or so gun-owners spend a day or whatever being briefed by an independent party (so neither pro or anti gun, democrat or republican etc., last thing you want is fox news educating people about laws, after all) on the current legislation, what it covers, how it effects them etc.

This makes sure that everyone who owns a gun is fully aware of what the law is, what it covers and what that means for them which should reduce these kinds of misunderstandings.

After all, there was that story a while ago of that guy who went to his neighbours house to complain about the noise of their party, with his gun. Then when one of the guests got a bit pissed off with how he was talking to him started to approach him the complainant claimed he was standing his ground and shot him. It was clear to most that a stand your ground law shouldn't apply when it is the person who started the confrontation who is using that defence and that the victim was not armed or shown any actual threatening behaviour to warrant a lethal response, yet, once again, we have someone shot because of the lack of knowledge about what these laws actually cover.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Because he thought it would. If he hadn't thought that it would protect him, would he have still killed the kid?

This is a case where there needs to be clear lines about what is and isn't covered by such laws and a system to educate people about these laws. Perhaps a program where every five years or so gun-owners spend a day or whatever being briefed by an independent party (so neither pro or anti gun, democrat or republican etc., last thing you want is fox news educating people about laws, after all) on the current legislation, what it covers, how it effects them etc.

You're trying to excuse people from a country that has people thinking that their 14th amendment gives them carte blanche to murder Serbian immigrants with hammers.

Americans are fundamentally damaged. I say this as one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, by my own argument, we should probably not only take away guns, but also cars and tools and swap them out for padded rooms and straightjackets.

...feth.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Why is it petrifying? The law didn't defend him. It's like saying someone trying to use a stapler to open a stuck jar is petrifying.

Because he thought it would. If he hadn't thought that it would protect him, would he have still killed the kid?

He probably could have gotten away with it, if he hadn't bragged to police about the trap like an idiot. This reminds me of the Tom Greer case, where the dude was happy to tell TV stations that he shot to death an unarmed woman (in the back no less), who had been begging for her life and claiming to be pregnant. This was done in "self defense" of course. A lot of Americans seem to be under the impression that shooting other people is their god given right, so long as they do it vaguely around the time said person was trespassing (or a few minutes later, depending on how far you need to chase them through the woods in order to get a clear shot). That probably is cause for concern.

 daedalus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I know this is a bit of a rant, and it's not really directed at you. But I feel like sometimes folks act as if having a gun in the house is no more dangerous than having a hammer in the house and I think that gun owners as a group end up loosing credibility with statements like that.

Hey, I agree with you (and I recognize you're not directing the comment at me). I don't know if it's more dangerous than a garage full of eviscerating power tools. I have no counter for your range argument. That's a valid point.

Incidentally enough, I'm that crazy minority that has zero problems with anyone owning guns and yet doesn't own one myself. I mean, idiots might cause accidents with guns, but I'm just far more scared of the many orders of magnitude more of them that send several ton bullets on wheels down the interstate every day than I am of other nuts.

I see the sentiment that d-usa is expressing, but I am one of those that knows having a firearm in the house is no more dangerous than a gun. There is definitely a potential for more harm/danger, but it's simple existence is not a danger in itself. It's something that I am well aware of, and having kids, have stored/secured my own firearms accordingly. But for me, it's a "fact" that there is little to no danger in having a gun in my house, when compared to the other power tools, knives, etc that are there. This is because the amount of use one gets versus the other. Seriously, the guns sit stored/secured until/unless I'm at the range, or I'm cleaning them. Things like hammers, knives, saws, etc. get used much, much more often and if you follow probability, the fact that they are more used brings a higher risk of mishap with them.

I also heavily agree with you on the danger that is driving with the other idiots on the road I actually kind of feel that my area is turning a bit into an Orwellian state, because I'm seeing more and more billboards up with a mildly attractive woman holding a phone to her ear, a "scared" look on her face and the caption "See Something Say something" or "Report Suspicious Activity" and the like.

 Sarouan wrote:
Sadly, that will keep happening as long as there will be weapons and stupid people.

A gun doesn't protect. Its sole purpose is to kill (or at least maim).

Someone said killers aren't unarmed. That's right. Funny that a lot of "good americans" are armed, isn't it?

Next time, burglars will attack with rocket launchers before taking the money from the ruins. Then it will be fine to equip your house with automatic turrets firing at everything moving in a 30 m perimeter.

Honestly, I think a nuclear missile would be much better in my garden. Just in case, you know.

This is fascinating. I read your post a few times and realized that every single sentence is wrong. Not even like, "IMHO" wrong, but actually, demonstrably, factually wrong. You sir, are a master craftsman in the art of creating ludicrous posts.