Comments
-
@I Are Lebo, that 9 year old is gonna live in torment for like 80 more years, jesus.
-
@I Are Lebo, yeah. That story fvcked me up so bad.
-
@I Are Lebo, If the US won’t tighten up gun laws, could they at least make people take some kind of mandatory gun training when they buy their first one? Ideally throwing in a few trick questions like “when is it okay to leave a loaded firearm with small children and no adult supervision?” Anyone who answers anything that isn’t “never” has the gun or the child taken away, whichever is legally easier. (Although I might also accept “zombie apocalypse, if everyone else is dead. At least they have a chance that way”).
-
@Nellybert , I honestly don’t understand how every stare doesn’t have like a course and test before you get a fire arm. That doesn’t seem too onerous to me.
-
@Dragoon0106, I’d guess that certain parties would regard it as an infringement of the 2nd Amendment as it might prevent some people (admittedly just really, really stupid people) from owning guns.
-
@Nellybert , guns are tools of death. They CANNOT be limitless in scope of ownership, and the massive gun death rates in the USA are evidence of such.
-
@I Are Lebo, I ain’t arguing with ya on that - just guessing why it hasn’t happened.
-
@Nellybert , yeah
-
@I Are Lebo, guns are tools, less than one millionth of a percent of the usage of firearms in the USA by legal firearm owners are at another person. Literally less than 0.000001% of use cases. Totally a “tool of death” when causing death isn’t even a statistically significant usage of the tool. Let me guess knifes which kill more people per year every single year the US has existed than guns, are totally fine and not “tools of death,” right? What about automobiles, same shjt. What about opioid based pain medication like the four I’m legally prescribed for cardiothoracic reconstructive surgery. Those kill orders of magnitude more people, they a “tool of death” too?
-
@PB2, firstly, even assuming that your statistics are true, which I seriously doubt, other than target practice, what else exactly are guns used for? Hunting is killing. Death doesn’t just apply to humans being shot. The entire purpose of a firearm is to propel a projectile at lethal speeds. Knives exist to cut more than just living material. You cut boxes, you cut food, etc. Give me three uses of a gun that aren’t practicing killing or actually killing, and I will eat my words.
-
@sploot, maybe if he was the kind of kid to shoot his sister he's the kind of kid that won't care that he shot his sister
-
@Nellybert , because the constitutional right to defend yourself means you don't need " training to buy a firearm in your home. That being said this is the vast minority of gun crimes
-
@I Are Lebo, Threatening people, injuring people, and starting a track & field race. 😋
-
@I Are Lebo, three uses for a gun: Sport shooting. Defense of self and property, including from pests and varmints that would kill or attack livestock, property, and crops. Defense from the tyranny of the majority or of the federal government. Neither of those three require any killing of any sort. If you even looked into gun usership statistics at all, you would see that if even one in 40 cases of a fire arm being used in self defense per year results in the person who has to defend themselves living, then guns save more lives per annum than they end. Also, before you try to strawman defense of one’s self or property as killing someone, that’s such a ludicrous argument, as the overwhelming majority end with neither side dead or even shot, but with one side running away. Additionally there is evidence that knowledge of the presence of armed bystanders decreases the rate at which crimes are committed and attempted, so guns can be a deterrent without even firing.
-
@BlazingBowman, Please see my second reply on this (the 5th reply below the OP).
-
@PB2, Don’t you need a license to drive a car and a prescription from your doctor to get the opioids? If you’re saying they’re comparable to guns, are you saying you think similar restrictions should apply to all of them?
-
@Nellybert , No, I’m pointing out the lack of logic concerning some tools and the fear and risk they pose to society, and how people bandwagon on to ideas they do not fully understand, with logic that simply does not fit. You have to be 18 years old to purchase a firearm, and have to go through more of a background check then I ever had to for my meds, they in fact, threw 9 different types of them at me, and had me taking four different derivations of the same drug at the same time— despite the fact that marijuana actually worked better and was several orders of magnitude safer for me AND MY PHYSICIANS FLAT OUT ADMITTED THIS TO MY FACE. But they get extra money from the pharmaceutical companies to prescribe these medications, so they over prescribe them, and guess what? Over prescribed opioids kill more people than all other forms of drugs, and roughly 64,000 americans die from prescription overdose per year. 11,200 are murdered by guns, with over 6000 of those being gang related
-
@PB2, so, compare ~5,200 deaths to 64,000 and tell me that banning a certain type of long rifle (that isn’t even used in the vast majority of shootings and isn’t any deadlier, but in fact less so than the majority of all firearms. I mean, a shotgun would be FAR more lethal, and pistols and hand guns kill over double the amount of people. . . Too bad those aren’t usually as big, black, and scary looking) or a fvcking bumpstock is going to make anyone any safer.
-
@Nellybert , dude PB2 just owned you
-
@PB2, The opioid overdoses are self-inflicted and not murder - you took self-inflicted wounds out of the gun deaths, so why include self-inflicted in the opioid deaths? And yes, they are crazy dangerous - some years ago I got accidentally addicted to codeine because my doctor insisted that it wasn’t addictive and gave it to me in bucket loads. It was only when I googled it (seriously, there were no warnings on the packets) that I found out and stopped taking them - Jesus, that was not a fun week! Which is exactly why they are heavily regulated. But they do at least have a purpose which is meant to be beneficial. A gun literally exists only to kill, injure or scare the bearers target. I’m not advocating banning them or anything like that, I’m debating your logic/argument not the US constitution here. 👍🏻
-
@BlazingBowman, At no point in this discussion did I say anything at all about banning any kind of gun or accessory (and I never mentioned the ‘certain type of long rifle’ he refers to). My stance through all of this is that *ahem* I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT BANNING GUNS IN THE USA WOULD WORK. We seem to be having different conversations as I simply pointed out that he had compared firearms to two other things (cars and opioids) which are regulated in ways guns are not (licenses for cars, prescriptions for the drugs). He made the comparison, not me.
-
@Nellybert , you are flat out wrong when you baselessly insinuate that “A gun literally exists only to kill, injure or scare the bearers target” The overwhelmingly vast majority of bullets fired by gun owners aren’t directed at anything more than skeet and paper. There are over 300,000,000 guns in the US, and 11,200 gun murders, with around 36,000 additional injuries. If every gun shot a single bullet, thats accounting for at most ~50,000 out of 300,000,000 or about 1 in 6,000. Given that people go to ranges and often shoot far more than that per gun per sitting, and I know people who go to gun ranges almost every weekend. There’s a statistic that in the US shooting someone with a gun accounts for roughly 1 millionth of a percent of the total uses of firearms per year. Not one in a million, one millionth of a percent, or 1 in a hundred million. Obviously its extremely hard to get an accurate figure, and that is a best estimate. The statistics I gave before, though, give context
-
@PB2, Why are you now counting bullets fired? Please take your straw man and put him back in the cupboard over there, so we can stick to the topic at hand. Okay? Let me set this out my position to avoid confusion: 1) Guns exist only to shoot at things. Most people will never fire them at a living creature, but that doesn’t change their purpose. Doesn’t make them evil, doesn’t make them murderous, it’s just a simple fact that the purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet at a target. 2) Cars and opioids are regulated/licensed. Not saying guns should be the same, you made the comparison and I pointed out the difference there. 3) I am not arguing for a gun ban and don’t think that outlawing the AR15 would achieve much, if anything.
-
@PB2, you are missing the point. A gun is a weapon specifically designed to kill. Target practice does not count against this. Using a lethal weapon as a deterrent instead of actually killing with it also doesn’t discount this. Furthermore, you claim about the restrictions of gun ownership is contradicted by the HUNDREDS of videos showing people walking into gun shows across the USA and purchasing a firearm without so much as showing ID. In addition, your counter about opioids or cars is ridiculous, because those only result in death when used improperly. When used properly, guns kill. Guns are not defence. They don’t protect you in any way other than killing, wounding, or scaring off an attacker. If you think your gun will in any way protect you against the federal government, then you are deluding yourself. Your gun will not stop a tyrannical government from infringing on your rights or the rights of your family. It won’t even stop the current government from becoming tyrannical.
-
@I Are Lebo, so much of your comment is baseless conjecture “guns = only killing because I say so” “Your other examples are ridiculous because I’m straw-manning them” If you wont have an actual discussion, I am done here.
-
@PB2, then be done, because you’ve contradicted nothing. I’ve never stated that guns are only good for killing. That is its primary purpose, not its only purpose. In addition, that is not always a bad thing. Killing someone who is trying to kill you is a good thing. You are misrepresenting the topic because you are obviously massively biased for it.
-
@Nellybert , Guns exist to shoot at things, sure. You call me out for a strawman that is not committed (I went from talking about fire arm use, to talking about fire arm use at the unit scale, bullets fired are individual use observations for the weapon in question Oh what a strawman that is) while equivocating shooting with killing. The irony is palpable. 2 guns are regulated and licensed too, that is exactly my point about how little you understand your own examples. Guns are regulated more than either prescription opioids or cars, despite the fact that both of the latter are significantly more lethal per annum, more lethal per use, cause a higher percentage of harm to no harm per use case, and also are not guaranteed as rights which shall not be infringed upon.
-
@PB2, I don’t think you understand what guns are at their most fundamental level, because you’re so obsessed with what they mean, emotionally, to you. The purpose of a gun is quite similar to the purpose of a spear, or a sword, or a slingshot, or any of the myriad of weapons we humans have invented. A gun is not a tool. A gun is a weapon.
-
@I Are Lebo, so we should ban knives too, as clearly they are just weapons and their actual use doesn’t matter at all, right? You aren’t at all concerned with how people are using them or what the actual end use of them are. They are just scary, right? Lets ban arrows and bows too. People don’t use them more for sport archery, they are fundamentally weapons, right?
-
@PB2, and this is where you are intentionally seeking conflict and are conflating what I’m saying with what you think I’m saying. I am in no way calling for the banning of guns. There are many legitimate reasons to own a weapon of death. The INTENDED use of most knives isn’t use in killing. What would you argue the INTENDED use of a handgun is? They’re bad for hunting, and they work at too close range for most forms of warfare. Why do you think the Glock 9mm was invented?
-
@I Are Lebo, here’s is something to consider, all weapons are tools, fundamentally and by definition. What matters is not the numena of a thing, what matters is the way the individual who used it did so. If I take a sword and melt it down into a plowshare, that weapon has been used as the means of making yet another tool. This is fundamentally different than stabbing someone with the same sword, correct? Or holding it by the blade and trying to use it as a golf club, for that matter. The point is, the way someone uses a tool is much more important than what that tool is, or what you personally think their intended use of that tool might be. Your opinion on the matter is entirely and utterly irrelevant. What they do with the tool(s) at their disposal, is what is relevant.
-
@PB2, none of that is relevant. A gun is a tool (I’ll concede that point) designed with the purpose of killing what it is pointed at. Prove me wrong. Because you haven’t done so yet.
-
@I Are Lebo, that is not how the burden of proof nor debate work. I will not prove a negative when you have provided zero support nor statistics for your point, nor even the logical support for it. Where do you get guns = killing?
-
@PB2, this is not a moral judgement, not is this a moral issue. It’s about reality. This is what a gun is.
-
@I Are Lebo, are you mad at all the skeet and paper people are killing? What even is your definition of “killing” and how is a gun only able to point at things which are alive in the first place?????
-
@PB2, what a gun is. That is the basic concept we are discussing. Not what a gun can or can not do. If you cannot see the basic fact that a gun is a tool specifically designed to cause death, then you are blind to reality and this discussion is entirely pointless. A sword doesn’t cease to be an instrument of death if you hang it over your mantelpiece, and a gun doesn’t cease to be an instrument of death if you only use it for target practice. Shooting it at skeet or paper is SIMULATED killing. That is LITERALLY the entire point of the exercise. A gun is designed and built to propel a projectile at lethal speed. Denying this is denying reality. A gun, sword, bow, etc. These were all invented for warfare. This is why they exist. Have you never picked up a history book?
-
@PB2, your arguments are ludicrous, as you’re constantly conflating totally different things. A fork is a tool for eating, even if you stab someone in the eye with one. A gun is a weapon for killing, even if you use it to scoop ice cream. The intended use of a tool defines it more than the actual use. Otherwise, the definition of anything is fluid.
-
@I Are Lebo, if you really believe black powder and the first guns properly so called were for killing, it is you who needs to open up your ancient Chinese history books. They were originally fireworks for entertainment, and display. What matters is how a gun is used, not your arbitrarily and illogically restricted and contained understanding of their purpose. If someone shoots at a range, they may just do it for fun and entertainment. They may do it for social reasons as well as community. You are the one assuming and baselessly stating that all it is is killing. You haven’t even supported how you came to this conclusion, nor how you preclude all other possibilities for their use.
-
@I Are Lebo, right right, so someone buys a gun, then this means they are only planning to kill someone or something. So explain to me how we have 300,000,000 guns yet only 11,200 deaths from killing people with them? Shouldn’t there be some 30,000 times more killings, if the actual use of the tool doesn’t matter? I don’t even understand how you can take yourself seriously. If someone stabs someone’s eye with a fork, they committed assault. It doesn’t matter that the fork is an eating utensil, they used it as an assault weapon. I’m sure you’ve heard the Police sound byte about “assault pens,” right? Anything you use to attack someone with becomes an assault weapon. The prior use or intended use don’t matter, what you actually fvcking use it for does. Similarly, I could own 40 trillion guns, if I never use them though, they aren’t magically murder weapons by nature of how they can function. They may have the potential to become one, but until being used as such, they aren’t.
-
@PB2, you are being intentionally obtuse, and purposefully misrepresenting what I’ve been saying. I don’t know who you’re arguing with, who is saying the things that you are countering, but it’s not me. And so, I’m done. Good day.
-
@PB2, I said “guns are designed to kill” you said “most bullets are shot at targets, so that’s wrong” - the straw man is that you were trying to argue about how many bullets are used & where, instead of what the designed purpose of a gun is. By that logic a nuke isn’t designed to kill, as only a tiny percentage of nuclear weapons have ever been fired at people. The gun regulations are basically “you can have this by default” where the other two are “you can’t have this until we say you can”. I’m not suggesting scrapping 2A and/or adopting a license/prescription type model for guns, just pointing out the difference - you don’t need permission from the government before you can buy a gun, you do before you can drive a car/be given opioids.
-
@PB2, And to be clear; I am not saying that guns are evil, all gun owners are murderers in the making, that high-school shootings etc are the fault of all gun owners, or that guns should be banned. Just that while both guns and opioids/cars can kill, only one is designed for that purpose.
-
@Nellybert , You may want to check up on the federal legislation regarding firearms, as you seem to be either be forgetting that numerous restrictions exist preventing people from owning all manner of weapons because they don’t have “the government’s permission.” There is: The National Firearms Act The Federal Firearm Act of 1938 The Omnibus Crime Control and Street Safety Act of 1968 The Firearm Owners Protection Act The Undetectable Firearm Act The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act All of which restrict who can own or purchase weapons, and what kind of weapons can be purchased. The state of gun laws you are describing is simply not reality. Even before factoring in state and county firearm legislation. That was my whole point to you. You don’t seem to even know that there already is further legislation on the sale of firearms than on the sale of opioids.
-
@PB2, Yes, there are restrictions on types of guns. But the default position is that you are allowed to own a gun of some variety, unless prohibited by certain conditions - as long as you’re not a felon, you have the constitutional right to own a gun. This does not apply to cars or opioids, you have to be given permission (in the form of a license or prescription) for them. You can walk in to Dave’s Sporting Goods, browse a selection of firearms and go “I’ll have that one” - you might have to take a background check and wait 3 days, but you can get the gun without having to give any justification or reason for it. You can not simply walk in to a shop and order a bag of morphine because you feel like it. Additionally, you could decide to sell one of your guns to a buddy and that’s perfectly legal. But if you decided to sell him a bunch of your prescription opioids, that’s a criminal offence.
-
@PB2, "sport shooting"- practicing killing and making it a competition. "Defense of self and property, including from pests and varmints..." -killing said pests and varmints. "Defense from tyranny..." -involves killing tyrants and tgeir supporters or soldiers. All valid uses for firearms. All failed to address a key part of Lebo's comment and thusly helped his argument.
-
@Nellybert , not sure if threatening and injuring people falls under one of those categories. Certainly derived from the known lethal capabilities of firearms, but I suspect you are technically correct. We must deliberate...
-
@I Are Lebo, on that point about fighting the govt: the IRA, and other guerrillas protecting their homes seem to have done pretty well in the past. If the US allows nuking ourselves then we've lost, but then all is lost anyway.
-
@mas2de, thank you. Some people just refuse to look at reality. This is what I don’t understand about many Americans. They perceive anything even remotely negative about guns, and they lose their friggin minds.
-
@mas2de, Technically I’m right as you can do them without killing anyone. However, you are also technically correct that the threat derives from their known capacity to kill. Let’s call that a draw. :)
-
@mas2de, I’d suggest that Ireland isn’t a great example as there were paramilitary groups fighting both sides of the argument - and NI remains part of the UK. Afghanistan might be a better as their militias (in various guises) have been successfully fighting off world Super Powers since the British in 1839-1842. The British Empire, the Russians and the Americans have all had a go and no one has every really succeeded.
-
@Nellybert , is it possible that none of these super powers succeeded because they were fighting an impossible battle? I mean, what would you consider a successful American-Afghanistan campaign scenario to be?
-
@I Are Lebo, “mother’s boyfriend” yikes there’s your problem
-
@SirTickleTots, I have literally no idea what you’re referring to. I just reread this entire thread and at no point did I see any reference to a mother’s boyfriend.
-
@I Are Lebo, you said it in your original comment
-
@SirTickleTots, I see now. Still don’t really get your point, though.
-
@I Are Lebo, young kids need a strong father figure
-
@SirTickleTots, trying to take the stance that a child murdering his sister in cold blood is a result of not having a proper father figure (which is a massive assumption on your part) is absolutely ludicrous. There’s lots of people growing up in broken households, and very, very few of them become psychopaths.
-
Not big enough
-
Uh oh...
-
That’s dark
-
Prepare ya diddly hole.
-
Is his sister also his mom because why is he even listening to her?
To anybody not knowing, this is referencing an incident that happened last month in Memphis where a 9 year old boy shot his 14 year old sister in the back of the head with their mothers boyfriends handgun because she wouldn’t share the video game she was playing. Not sure why it says 12 years old tho. Maybe this happened again with a 12 year old...