in my opinion guns should be only used for hunting animals, its insane how you all think it is safe to have a gun concealed on you its basically just an excuse to cause violence and also why do you think some american schools have metal detectors! here in Australia there a NO schools that even have one metal detector its just ridiculous how you american are all like ''how about we carry a gun with us, no wonder we are having so many death" its just stupid!
Last edited by SPID3RMUT; Sep 25, 2012 at 08:24 AM.
Wanna Join Plasma?
I be a Spider and a dog shaped like a 3 :)
Originally Posted by SPID3RMUT
in my opinion guns should be only used for hunting animals, its insane how you all think it is safe to have a gun concealed on you its basically just an excuse to cause violence and also why do you think some american schools have metal detectors! here in Australia there a NO schools that even have one metal detector its just ridiculous how you american are all like ''how about we carry a gun with us, no wonder we are having so many death" its just stupid!
My school doesn't have a metal detector. Mainly cause we have like.... 5 or 6 cops that patrol the school. We have only had one incedent with a gun and he was pretty much body slammed right on the spot, so we have no worries at the moment.
Reason were so chill with the security because any problems we have is usually solved with fist fight violence. So if guns are bad then our method is fool proof -_- No you guys just miss the point of the reason why guns are heavily restricted... cause any type of violence is bad. So taking that into account, why aren't we pinning knifes, baseball bats, hell even crowbars into this cause those things have popped up at my school. So no it's not cause of that is why we have so many deaths spider. WE have so man deaths because of fucking ignorant people trying to be hard and thinking the only way to do that is to get rid of the person all together. As others have said before it's not the guns that are bad, it's the morons who use them and any other object to cause havoc and chaos.
But in all reality... I think I might be insane...
I get why some people are saying these things are bad, Although with oracles post, it was a tad long so i didn't read it. With the rest of the people, Like they said, Its all about the people using them, Some bank robber with is 9mm? Yea that's bad. But is it the guns fault? No.
How about some father and a his little boy showing him how to use a small .22, I think its fun and cool that that's how he is spending his time with him.
How about some father and a his little boy showing him how to use a small .22, I think its fun and cool that that's how he is spending his time with him.
WHO SAID I WAS HUMAN? I'LL KICK THEIR ASS!
Originally Posted by Gum
Guns cannot be bad. They are an inanimate object used as a tool.
If guns are bad, then so are pencils, pens, books, ice picks, and basically every tool or item that can possibly be used to hurt somebody.
Its the idiots who use guns for bad purposes that are bad, not the guns themselves.
The argument that "guns aren't bad - people are" is a really unconvincing one against gun control. Guns are designed to end lives with maximum ease and efficiency. Clearly there is a difference between a gun and a pencil. There's also a difference between a gun and a knife or a sword because any idiot can (in the United States) get a hold of a gun and kill your stupid ass with just a trigger pull if they're within fifty feet. Swords or knives require more proximity and more determination and can't be used for mass killings in the way that firearms can.
The argument that guns aren't intrinsically bad is beside the point -- guns are intrinsically dangerous. Guns are used to take lives. Sometimes we might see that ending someone's life quickly is the only resolution to a problem, where another individual is threatening the lives of others. In that sort of situation, it can even be argued that the gun is "saving lives." But don't let that confuse you -- to save lives, the gun must take lives.
The real question is not whether guns are good or bad, but whether the benefits that gun ownership brings to our society (speaking from an Ameri-cenric point of view) outweigh the costs that they impose. Are guns used more often for crime or self defense? Is it possible to tally up the lives saved by guns and the lives taken by them?
The one major issue I have with current gun control is that I can go out and buy a fully automatic rifle with 30 round clips with little to no checks. One, I don't see why anybody would need a fully automatic rifle. Two, I don't see why anybody would need a 30 round clip. Three, it's inherently more dangerous than a handgun, yet a handgun requires more checks simply because it's concealable on one's person.
Since statistically, somebody is going to attack somebody's character because of being pro-gun control, I'll make something clear. I enjoy shooting. I'm a sharpshooter with a .22 rifle, and I plan on starting handgun sport shooting. I'm not some "anti-gun hippy" or some other stupid crap. I recognize hunting and sport shooting is a culturally acceptable activity in many societies, and I respect those who participate in them responsibly. However, in either circumstance, you shouldn't need to fire more than 1 bullet in quick succession. If you miss your mark while hunting, it's tough luck. Your second, third, fourth, thirtieth shot is not going to hit if you missed the first one. That animal will be long gone. The target will not go anywhere when sport shooting, so you should have no problem loading another shot to continue shooting. In my opinion, guns that can hold more than one shot should only be in possession of law enforcement, or stored in safe locations for sport shooters, and only taken out and used for individuals who have proven their responsibility and skill with a gun. Guns capable of putting out rounds quickly without reloading should not be allowed for personal ownership.
And again, people act like guns have rights. They don't. They are objects. Just because they aren't inherently bad, being inanimate, doesn't mean they are free from restrictions. If people are idiots, then it only makes sense to restrict the potential of said idiots from doing stupid things. You wouldn't give a knife to a mentally disturbed individual, so why would you give a gun to them?
And in response to what Clbck posted, it's important to note that guns were created with the intent to streamline killing, then improved to depersonalize it. It requires extreme effort to kill somebody with a knife or a sword because you have to get up close, and you have to look the person in the eyes and, for the duration of the swing, decide that you really want to kill that individual. Killing somebody in close range with a melee weapon is extremely personal. Single shot rifles are similar, but at a range. You have to decide that the person you are aiming at is who you want to kill, and that you want to kill them. It's still a personal action, slightly less so than using a knife, but personal none the less. Using a weapon that is capable of firing multiple times depersonalizes the act of killing somebody. You don't need to deliberate over killing the person, you just point in the general direction and keep firing. There's no need to deliberate over whether you want to kill somebody, you just fire. If you kill somebody, it's just a side effect from firing. This phenomena was noticed quite a while back. During WWI, they obtained statistics on how well the average soldier performed in the battlefield. This was back when single shots were common standard issue. They found that only 1 out of 10 soldier would actually fire their gun, and only 1 out of 10 of those people would actually be shooting to kill. Basically, 1 out of 100 soldiers would actually be trying to kill the enemy. However, this phenomena was not observed in machine gun crews. They shot to kill every time because it was just operating a machine, getting it to fire. There was no deliberation over killing somebody. They realized that automatic weapons increased the efficiency the average person could kill somebody. So using an automatic weapon not only increased physical capabilities of killing somebody, but emotionally increased the person's capabilities of killing somebody.
Since statistically, somebody is going to attack somebody's character because of being pro-gun control, I'll make something clear. I enjoy shooting. I'm a sharpshooter with a .22 rifle, and I plan on starting handgun sport shooting. I'm not some "anti-gun hippy" or some other stupid crap. I recognize hunting and sport shooting is a culturally acceptable activity in many societies, and I respect those who participate in them responsibly. However, in either circumstance, you shouldn't need to fire more than 1 bullet in quick succession. If you miss your mark while hunting, it's tough luck. Your second, third, fourth, thirtieth shot is not going to hit if you missed the first one. That animal will be long gone. The target will not go anywhere when sport shooting, so you should have no problem loading another shot to continue shooting. In my opinion, guns that can hold more than one shot should only be in possession of law enforcement, or stored in safe locations for sport shooters, and only taken out and used for individuals who have proven their responsibility and skill with a gun. Guns capable of putting out rounds quickly without reloading should not be allowed for personal ownership.
And again, people act like guns have rights. They don't. They are objects. Just because they aren't inherently bad, being inanimate, doesn't mean they are free from restrictions. If people are idiots, then it only makes sense to restrict the potential of said idiots from doing stupid things. You wouldn't give a knife to a mentally disturbed individual, so why would you give a gun to them?
And in response to what Clbck posted, it's important to note that guns were created with the intent to streamline killing, then improved to depersonalize it. It requires extreme effort to kill somebody with a knife or a sword because you have to get up close, and you have to look the person in the eyes and, for the duration of the swing, decide that you really want to kill that individual. Killing somebody in close range with a melee weapon is extremely personal. Single shot rifles are similar, but at a range. You have to decide that the person you are aiming at is who you want to kill, and that you want to kill them. It's still a personal action, slightly less so than using a knife, but personal none the less. Using a weapon that is capable of firing multiple times depersonalizes the act of killing somebody. You don't need to deliberate over killing the person, you just point in the general direction and keep firing. There's no need to deliberate over whether you want to kill somebody, you just fire. If you kill somebody, it's just a side effect from firing. This phenomena was noticed quite a while back. During WWI, they obtained statistics on how well the average soldier performed in the battlefield. This was back when single shots were common standard issue. They found that only 1 out of 10 soldier would actually fire their gun, and only 1 out of 10 of those people would actually be shooting to kill. Basically, 1 out of 100 soldiers would actually be trying to kill the enemy. However, this phenomena was not observed in machine gun crews. They shot to kill every time because it was just operating a machine, getting it to fire. There was no deliberation over killing somebody. They realized that automatic weapons increased the efficiency the average person could kill somebody. So using an automatic weapon not only increased physical capabilities of killing somebody, but emotionally increased the person's capabilities of killing somebody.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
