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.

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?

If I remember right, better and tighter gun regulations.

But HOW?

If it's sensible, I'm sure folks would support it. If it's assinine (ie, Feinstein's AWB), then we'd say "no".

I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?

 agnosto wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.

In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.

Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.

Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).

Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.

I never said "kill people" (no sure if anyone else did), I said the primary purpose for a firearm is to kill. If you or anyone else derives enjoyment from putting holes in paper, good for you but that does not change the fact that "guns" were created to kill and for no other reason than to do that one thing and every firearm made since its inception has been designed to be better at that one thing than the previous version. You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".

Honestly, even with all the half-baked open/concealed carry laws going around the US right now it's really a good thing that most people don't feel the need to do this:


or this:


Because nothing says "self-defense" like a pink pistol strapped to your waist in suburbia when you go to Starbucks for coffee. Am I the only person that thinks this is stupid? She's just asking some bad person, who was denied ownership of a firearm for good reason, to go up and take it from her and kill her and a bunch of other people.

I think you're just naive.

The reason for this fact is simple... firearms reduce the power differential between the weak and the strong, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak. Being strong doesn’t help much when you’re dead or gaking your pants in fear because your potential victim shoved a barrel muzzle under your nose.

Take rape, a crime usually involving a stronger person attacking a weaker person... right? Typically, the rapist gets the upper hand in a battle of fisticuffs. The gun is a great equalizer.

Ronald Reagan said:

“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.” ~Ronald Reagan

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?

If I remember right, better and tighter gun regulations.

But HOW?

If it's sensible, I'm sure folks would support it. If it's assinine (ie, Feinstein's AWB), then we'd say "no".

I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html?_r=0

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.

If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.

I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.

But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.

That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.

Sorry that gets you butthurt.

@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?

I want gun owners (of which I am one) to quit pretending that weapons are anything other than what they were designed for. How are we to expect that anybody will take any of our arguments seriously when a large group of us cannot even admit that weapons are what they are.

Guns were designed to enable us to injure and kill other things. We may use them for other reasons, but that doesn't make them any less designed for maximum lethal impact.

Remember how many of the "guns are not designed to kill people" crowd were on here just a little over a week ago making jokes about "I bet those liberals in Boston wish they had guns now that the terrorists are on the run hehehehehe". Why would liberals wish that? Were they bored in their homes and didn't have any way to entertain themselves during the lockdown? Did they get hungry and just needed to go and hunt in their living room? Because apparently that is what domestic guns are used for.

Do we carry concealed in case I suddenly get hungry? Do I keep a shotgun at home for spontaneous entertainment in case somebody breaks into my house? Did I misunderstand the rules of gun ownership? Keep your hands of the trigger unless you want accidental food? Never point your weapon at anything that you are not willing to entertain?

I want us to quit being idiots about what firearms are designed to be and what they are designed to do. Because if we keep on making idiotic arguments about the basic function of a firearm then there is no point in listening to anything else we have to say about them.

For the third time in this thread: I am not saying that firearms are not fun. I'm not saying that they are not pieces of art. I'm not saying that they cannot be great collectibles. I just want us to quit pretending that they are not designed for one primary purpose.

Because if guns don't kill people, and people kill people, then we don't even need the 2nd. Because people will overthrow a tyrannical government, not people with guns.

Perhaps All Gunz R Made 4 Killin' would not be an accurate statement?

 CptJake wrote:


Perhaps All Gunz R Made 4 Killin' would not be an accurate statement?

So can we regulate all guns except sanctioned sports guns?

You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".

I've handled a lot of airguns, some of them capable of putting down multi thousand pound animals. Calling them non lethal is ignorant in the extreme.

I've never been in a situation where I've been shot at or had to shoot at someone

I've never been in a situation where I have broken my leg, thus, you shouldn't ever need to carry a splint with your first aid equipment.

Even .22s are excellent weapons in trained hands because the rounds tend to penetrate without an exit and bounce around a bit; causing more internal damage.

I hear this myth a lot, I have yet to see actual evidence of the event. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence that a light, slow, soft .22 cal lead projectile tends to A: Flatten on the first solid object stuck, B: Cut a .22-.25 tunnel through approximately 9 inches of soft (As in: non-built up muscle tissue) meat and then stop, or C: Bounce off the first solid thing it impacts, and stop about 3-4 inches of meat later.

it gives us the right to protect ourselves, our neighbors and our country from the depredations of foreign powers.

But not with firearms that would actually be appropriate for the task, allegedly.

 d-usa wrote:
Because if guns don't kill people, and people kill people, then we don't even need the 2nd. Because people will overthrow a tyrannical government, not people with guns.

Hammers and saws don't build houses, people do. Perhaps we don't need any tools because people do everything?


Or we could accept that tools make actions easier. Guns are tools. Using them in an illegal manner is guess what? Yep, illegal. Bashing someone's head in with a hammer is another example of using a legal tool for illegal purposes. As is purposely running over someone with your car.

But GUNZ make too EASY!!!

And? I prefer to make everything I can as easy as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Perhaps All Gunz R Made 4 Killin' would not be an accurate statement?

So can we regulate all guns except sanctioned sports guns?

Sure you can. Just amend the Constitution.

Otherwise, your opinion means crap compared to the guaranteed right to own weapons.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because if guns don't kill people, and people kill people, then we don't even need the 2nd. Because people will overthrow a tyrannical government, not people with guns.

Hammers and saws don't build houses, people do. Perhaps we don't need any tools because people do everything?


Or we could accept that tools make actions easier. Guns are tools. Using them in an illegal manner is guess what? Yep, illegal. Bashing someone's head in with a hammer is another example of using a legal tool for illegal purposes. As is purposely running over someone with your car.

But GUNZ make too EASY!!!

And? I prefer to make everything I can as easy as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Perhaps All Gunz R Made 4 Killin' would not be an accurate statement?

So can we regulate all guns except sanctioned sports guns?

Sure you can. Just amend the Constitution.

Otherwise, your opinion means crap compared to the guaranteed right to own weapons.

So can we quit pretending that guns are a tool designed to make killing and injuring as easy as possible?

And? They are tools used for a lot of things. The one I showed a picture of is a good example that your statement all guns are for killin' and woundin' is wrong. I own guns that though they could kill or wound were absolutely NOT made with that intention. They were made for target shooting/fun. I also own some that very much were made for killing, some defensive and some offensive, some suited for both. And it is my right to have them just as it is your right to wish that right did not exist.

 d-usa wrote:

So can we quit pretending that guns are a tool designed to make killing and injuring as easy as possible?

D... my man...

Why are you stuck on that? Of course they're tools designed to make killing easier... no one is saying otherwise.

Are you implying that those who really don't agree with that shouldn't have guns in the first place?

 CptJake wrote:
And? They are tools used for a lot of things. The one I showed a picture of is a good example that your statement all guns are for killin' and woundin' is wrong. I own guns that though they could kill or wound were absolutely NOT made with that intention. They were made for target shooting/fun. I also own some that very much were made for killing, some defensive and some offensive, some suited for both. And it is my right to have them just as it is your right to wish that right did not exist.

That's right and as long as we understand each others' opinions we can amicably disagree; It's nice to have a mature conversation. I was brought up differently than you and that has colored my perception of gun ownership; my grandfather, who served in the Pacific in WWII would spin in his grave if I used a firearm for anything other than hunting or self-defense because that's what he beat into my head. That said, he's probably digging his way out now to come beat me because I married a Japanese woman. We are the sum total of our experiences.

I've mentioned before, it is a right. And that right currently IS regulated (in my opinion way more than it should be).

But, like any new law/regulation proposed, I want congress critters and advocates for the proposed law/regulation to:

1. Explain the goal of the proposal.

2. Explain how they believe the proposal would achieve the goal.

3. Explain the cost of enacting the proposal, both monetary and in freedoms lost.

Then let folks decide if they really want it.

Goals like "NO MOAR SANDY HOOKS" coupled with the proposed legislation we have seen just don't make sense. If the proposal does not have a chance of achieving the goal (or a low chance) it isn't 'reasonable' at all. If the proposed legislation takes away a freedom I currently hold without a VERY definite benefit it is not 'reasonable'. And frankly, there are some freedoms that if taken away, no benefit would make the loss worth while.

 CptJake wrote:
And? They are tools used for a lot of things. The one I showed a picture of is a good example that your statement all guns are for killin' and woundin' is wrong. I own guns that though they could kill or wound were absolutely NOT made with that intention. They were made for target shooting/fun. I also own some that very much were made for killing, some defensive and some offensive, some suited for both. And it is my right to have them just as it is your right to wish that right did not exist.

Feel free to search through my entire posting history to find any statement to back up your idea that I wish that a right to gun ownership doesn't exist.

I am pro gun, I realize that we need some better regulation, and I realize that statements like this:

 djones520 wrote:

Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).

make us look like idiots and make it hard to have any of our pro-2nd amendments taken seriously when we appear to argue that a gun used in self defense isn't even a factor in somebody dying.

I want to keep my guns, and I don't want other gun owners to make all gun owners look stupid by refusing to admit what firearms are. Because if we can't even admit that guns make it incredibly easy to injure others, why should they listen to anything else we have to say.

gunslingerpro wrote:It may be fair to say that the marketing of firearms as 'toys' may be more troublesome than cars or alcohol as marketed 'toys'.

However, which of those three is the most deadly? And the second most?

The gun is the most deadly.

If you think otherwise then I suggest using all three on yourself and seeing if I'm wrong.

I always end up saying this, and nobody ever responds to it because it ruins every "but the guns aren't so bad" argument ever:

Calculate the total number of hours the average American spends drinking. Then the total number they spend driving (it's 65 mins every day). Then the total number of hours spend using firearms. Then compare the fatality rates. I think you'll find that firearms outperform the other two exponentially.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

So can we quit pretending that guns are a tool designed to make killing and injuring as easy as possible?

D... my man...

Why are you stuck on that? Of course they're tools designed to make killing easier... no one is saying otherwise.

Lots of people are saying that.

Everytime somebody makes the stupid argument of "if somebody wants to kill somebody they will just do it with a hammer" they deny the fact that guns make it a heck of a lot easier.

The whole mantra of "Guns don't kill People, People kill People" attempts to belittle the effect that guns have on making it easier to injure.

Are you implying that those who really don't agree with that shouldn't have guns in the first place?

Now. I'm implying that those who don't agree make gun owners look like idiots.

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.

Except when it does, which is all the time.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

So can we quit pretending that guns are a tool designed to make killing and injuring as easy as possible?

D... my man...

Why are you stuck on that? Of course they're tools designed to make killing easier... no one is saying otherwise.

Lots of people are saying that.

From facebook? Drama driven snivel.

Everytime somebody makes the stupid argument of "if somebody wants to kill somebody they will just do it with a hammer" they deny the fact that guns make it a heck of a lot easier.

That's not this argument is about... it's been proven in the UK and the Au that making guns illegal didn't reduce homicides... that's the argument. Not that it's isn't easy (mechanically) to kill someone with a gun...

The whole mantra of "Guns don't kill People, People kill People" attempts to belittle the effect that guns have on making it easier to injure.

See... I think you're wrong here... it's stating that PEOPLE are ultimately responsible, not the gun itself.

Are you implying that those who really don't agree with that shouldn't have guns in the first place?

Now. I'm implying that those who don't agree make gun owners look like idiots.

Well... good luck there... they're are idiots in all walks of life. Try not to put an avid pro-2nd supporter into the same bucket as looneys. Cool?

Fun Factor of this thread jumped by five

Jihadin wrote:Fun Factor of this thread jumped by five

I'm mostly impressed that someone who claims to be part of the US army has claimed that guns are not designed to kill people.

I'm mostly impressed that someone who claims to be part of the US army has claimed that guns are not designed to kill people

Want to know what really seperates killing someone and not choosing to. Nine and Half pounds

Jihadin wrote:

I'm mostly impressed that someone who claims to be part of the US army has claimed that guns are not designed to kill people

Want to know what really seperates killing someone and not choosing to. Nine and Half pounds

I'm sorry; I'm not sure I'm picking up the reference?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

I'm mostly impressed that someone who claims to be part of the US army has claimed that guns are not designed to kill people

Want to know what really seperates killing someone and not choosing to. Nine and Half pounds

I'm sorry; I'm not sure I'm picking up the reference?

Weight of an M16

 agnosto wrote:
Seaword,
Yeah and that revolutionary war musket that was used when the founding fathers wrote the constitution? I bet it can kill just as many people in the same amount of time as that 1911 or ar...oh wait, it couldn't.

just like free speech doesnt apply to the internet, radio, cell phones right?

that kind of argument is farce when used against the 1st amendment, and its a farce when used on the 2nd.

back then, despite guns shooting at a slower rate of fire, they were still the forefront of weapons technology.

Both those amendments are there for good reasons.

Why are you bringing the 1st amendment into this? This topic is about guns not freedom of speech, you're comparing apples and oranges man.

Weight of an M16

wrong

 Jihadin wrote:

Weight of an M16

wrong

They're about 9 pounds unloaded, and I know it isn't the trigger pull...

 Melissia wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.

Except when it does, which is all the time.

wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?

also, kind of ironic, since our hobby of 40k involves plastic "barbie" dolls that actually DO commit mass murder/genocide and so on.

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html?_r=0

Thanks for that, seems fairly reasonable to me I mean maybe there might be a few unnecessary or pointless ideas on there but for the most part it seems like a good proposal imo.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html?_r=0

Thanks for that, seems fairly reasonable to me I mean maybe there might be a few unnecessary or pointless ideas on there but for the most part it seems like a good proposal imo.

That was his "plan".

Most never got to the Senate though...

Many were just political BS... like
"Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Well numb-nuts, nominate a different one... kay?

easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.

Except when it does, which is all the time.

wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?

also, kind of ironic, since our hobby of 40k involves plastic "barbie" dolls that actually DO commit mass murder/genocide and so on.

While obviously a bit of an exaggeration on Mel's part the difference with guns is stuff like that happens in real-life where with 40K it's a fictitious setting so 40k isn't actually causing real-life mass murder/genocide and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html?_r=0

Thanks for that, seems fairly reasonable to me I mean maybe there might be a few unnecessary or pointless ideas on there but for the most part it seems like a good proposal imo.

That was his "plan".

Most never got to the Senate though...

Many were just political BS... like
"Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Well numb-nuts, nominate a different one... kay?

Yeah, I remember you posting the vid of that speech with a frustrated Obama (which I can understand) and an awkward looking Joe Biden (maybe he wasn't expecting this?).