In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid?

[myrkul]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Nope, guns are designed to project lead (or paint or plastic) pellets where the barrel is pointed. The pointing of the barrel, and the decision of when (or if) to pull the trigger is what decides the use case of a gun. Statistically, it's almost never to actually kill something.

Knives are designed to slice things. Forks are designed to pierce (and typically, hold) things. Unless you eat with one of these?

[MoonShadow]

I'm sure the two sides are bound to try swarming this thread but tell me, what do you think of the whole mess? I'm personally looking forward to laughing at their arrogance and stupidity along with Jon Stewart next year especially with the automatic tax rises and spending cuts around the corner.

One thing is certain, neither the gun dealers nor the government are worse off because of the stupidity of the debate.  The gun sales have never been higher than they have been over the past couple of weeks.  The taxes alone would be a perverse incentive for certain persons in government to stoke the anti-gun elements into saying stupid things, just to light a fire under the fear-of-a-ban sales.  It's working in that respect, as many people that I've talked to say that the gun shops are literally sold out of everything.

[Beans]

That guy could have easily killed even more people if he had taken a sword instead. People probably would have ran towards the screams instead of away from the gunshots. People living in cities have just been to busy sipping their lattes. They seem to forget a lot of people still enjoy hunting and sports. There is also no guarantee that a war inside are border will never happen. I would say it's inevitable, even if it doesn't happen in our life time. There are also a lot of situation where calling the police for help is not a solution. People are just becoming far to comfortable, and start to fear anything that could harm them while living their cozy lives.

[augustocroppo]

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US1512026?printsec=abstract

Be it known that we Charles Le Holden and William Knedler citizens the United States residing at Kings Mills in the county of Warren and State of Ohio have invented certain new and useful Improvements in Bullets of which the following is a specification.

Our invention relates to bullets or balls for cartridges such as are used in rifles pistols and the like and has for one of its objects the provision of simple and efficient means for rendering a bullet highly effective for holding itself intact and in shape during flighty.

(...)

The fluid will tend to be driven through the core 1 thus giving a maximum flattening or mushrooming effect to the bullet when the latter engages a target This gives great killing power to the bullet when the latter is used for hunting game and the like.

(...)

Moreover the bullet in preserving its unity on despite high velocities and not broken has greater penetration after mushrooming thus greatly enhancing its killing power.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm

Bullet terminal performance

A factor that has become more and more prominent in discussions of killing power is the terminal performance of hunting bullets. Assuming a rifle of reasonably adequate caliber, selecting the right bullet for the job can play a big role in killing power. Big game should be hunted only with bullets designed for the purpose. Frangible varmint type bullets and FMJ military type bullets are unsuitable for any type of big game hunting, and are illegal in most jurisdictions.

http://www.ncmuseumofhistory.org/collateral/articles/f06.david.carbine.williams.pdf

David “Carbine” Williams and the Invention of the M1 Carbine*

When World War II broke out, the U.S. military needed a weapon to combat the new fighting tactics of German forces. Support troops needed guns that were lighter than standard service rifles so that they could go about their normal duties. But they also needed guns that were more effective in combat than the pistols they had been using. The Ordnance Department asked for design proposals from both military and civilian designers.
 
Williams at the time was working for Winchester Repeating Firearms Company in Connecticut. Winchester decided at the last minute to enter a light rifle prototype in the competition. An important part of this rifle was Williams’s short-stroke gas piston, which he had worked on in prison. After several weeks of tests and a number of modifications, Winchester’s entry, the Carbine Caliber .30 M1, was adopted as the standard rifle for military service. 

The M1 carbine, as it came to be known, went from a design on paper to a weapon in the hands of soldiers in less than a year.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing.

Nope, guns are designed to project lead (or paint or plastic) pellets where the barrel is pointed. The pointing of the barrel, and the decision of when (or if) to pull the trigger is what decides the use case of a gun.

The decision of pull the trigger is not what determine the primary purpose of the weapon design, therefore your statement is fallacious (and stupid, as you like to be).

Statistically, it's almost never to actually kill something.

What statistics are you talking about? Did you not know that a vast number of people died in the Second Word War from firearm shots?

[myrkul]

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

[augustocroppo]

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

In accordance with what reference?

The number of bullets fired by a firearm do not change the main purpose of the firearm design. Hence bullets were designed to increase the firearm killing power, even if was necessary to waste a hundred bullets in one single shot. Machine guns were extensively used (and designed) in the Second World War due its high killing power, not due its capacity to waste bullets.

Mauzer K98, Sten Gun, MP44, MG42, M1 Garand, Grease Gun, Walther P38, TT-31, DP-27, STV-40, etc. All designed to kill, whatever number of bullets were necessary.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot,

Yes, firearms are designed to perform a task, 'only kill for their intended purpose'.

So, why you like to delude yourself by denying the primary design purpose of firearms (including bullets) is to kill since it have been invented?

Wait? Let me guess what will be your next argument? Bows were only designed to throw arrows?

as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

I do not see any statics in your post.

You are implying that firearms were designed to hit targets eventually and because of that, killing power was not regarded by the designer. In accordance with your logic, hand grenades are not designed to kill, but only to disperse fragments able to penetrate human flesh in all directions. If the fragments fail to kill the target, this means the hand grenade was not designed to kill.

[myrkul]

Let me guess what will be your next argument? Bows were only designed to throw arrows?

Yes, as a matter of fact.

There is a Marvel character who uses a bow for numerous special purposes, which killing is but one of. In one scene of the recent Avengers movie, he uses it to download a virus onto a computer by firing a specially designed arrow into a dataport. So you see, it is the intent of the user that determines the use of a weapon.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. It is the intent of the person behind the gun that determines it's purpose.
Take, for instance, these:

Fired from a standard shotgun, these projectiles are designed not to kill.
If a gun is designed only to kill, why then, do these projectiles even exist?

[laughingbear]

If you dont like guns, dont buy one.  If you want to take guns away from people, and ban them... you come and get mine personally.  Debate over.

[Littleshop]

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

Like almost all items, guns are not monolithic.  There are many kinds of guns for many kinds of purposes.  99% of them are for killing (people or animals).  Of those 99% there are some that are dual purpose and some that are intended mostly to kill people.  While you can hunt deer with a handgun, it is a poor tool for the job. 

It is stupid to derail a conversation about guns by arguing what they are used for.  The purpose is obvious.   


It would be great if we could wave a magic wand and make all of these killings end with a law.  This can not happen.  The guns exist, will not go away and for the most part gun control laws will not prevent these killings.  NOTHING will totally stop these killings, they can only be reduced.

Upping security in schools will also do little or nothing.  The amount of money spent could be simply spent in upgraded auto safety and far more child lives would be saved. 

My choice:

Better mental health care.  More education on gun safety with an emphasis on keeping guns secured and only accessible by the rightful owner.  Letting people know there are hard facts that having an unsecured gun is more dangerous in most cases then not owning one at all but KEEPING IT ONES CHOICE as to what to do. 

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light. He thinks his arguments deserve merit.

[myrkul]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

[Littleshop]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

[myrkul]

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

You are not the best judge of such things.

[MoonShadow]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks.  It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder.  I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.

[farlack]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Wow, and I though the 10,000 rounds of ammo I shot this year was for fun, shit..

I guess you have never heard of a bayonet.

[Littleshop]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks.  It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder.  I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.

Nothing is new about those arguments.   We have seen them time and time again.  Almost anything can be used to kill (car, knife, chemical) and those things are not regulated. 

As I have said, I do not believe any any proposed gun control law would have a big impact on these types of shootings.  There are changes to America that could be made to reduce gun violence but I do not believe the political will exists to do them.  There are a lot of voluntary changes that could be made in media and reporting (the coverage of these events probably drives more of these events to happen) but this is also very unlikely to happen.  Big media makes too much money off of these events. 

[Lethn]

Like I said guys, stupid hypothetical arguments that I refuse to take part in any more, it's like having an argument on the internet about whether someone could kick your arse, it's never going to end

[farlack]

I feel the media is to blame, if they don't blow things up, no one else will want their name to be remembered in history.  I don't think we went a few days without some sort of shocking shooting being blown all over the media after the school shooting even though it happens all the time.

[organofcorti]

Like I said guys, stupid hypothetical arguments that I refuse to take part in any more, it's like having an argument on the internet about whether someone could kick your arse, it's never going to end

I agree. The question of gun control in the US is moot. There are plenty of unregistered illegal weapons available in that country, and gun control won't prevent them from being sold on. Plus it's not impossible to print your own weapon if you have access to a 3D printer.

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated. In this context arguing about gun control is like arguing about the relative safety of fallout shelters during a nuclear war.

[kneim]

As a younger man I heard about a person shooting 3 other people and then himself at a day, here in Germany.

Some days later I heard he was a member of my own school class some years ago.

I remember him as a GOOD guy in our class, but later he decided to be a BAD one.

It became known he was in a shooting club, he shooted thousands of bullets in peace, but needed only 4 bullets for 4 people shooting them to death. He selected his victims arbitrarily. In his farewell letter he wrote: I didn't know how easy it is to shoot people to death.