Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Let's get rid of anything without "a useful purpose" then. Alcohol, cigarettes, video games, twinkies, the white house calligraphy staff, hot air balloons, breast implants (geez...did i really just suggest that?), so on and so forth

Unlike any of those "items" you suggest, the main purpose of the gun is to kill.

[Extrazero8]

Unlike any of those "items" you suggest, the main purpose of the gun is to kill.

The main purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile.

[Deleted]

The main purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile.

That's like saying the main purpose of a keyboard is to push the buttons randomly. Surely you see the point of the projectile + gun is to kill stuff.

[Spectral]

Surely you see the point of the projectile + gun is to kill stuff.

I'd bet the ratio of bullets fired to people killed is awfully low, even in the United States. If that's the purpose, they aren't very effective.

[Extrazero8]

That's like saying the main purpose of a keyboard is to push the buttons randomly. Surely you see the point of the projectile + gun is to kill stuff.

The point of projectile + gun is to put the projectile "somewhere". Where the projectile goes doesn't have to be into anything living.

[Rocko9]

That's like saying the main purpose of a keyboard is to push the buttons randomly. Surely you see the point of the projectile + gun is to kill stuff.

I've fired thousands of rounds, none of which have killed, harmed, grazed or seriously ruined someones day. The extent of my killing is paper targets, clay pigeons and pests.

[Wells]

Nice hyperbole, Wells.

I mean, because nuclear weapons are used in recreation, home defense and collecting.

I thought I didn't have to explain what I wanted arms for.

[Tinykong]

I already said to Phaelix that I feel the same way about military-grade knives. Please read my posts before saying this stuff And like I've said, this is a gun control thread. Assuming my beliefs about non-guns is rather... silly, is it not? Did I specifically state anywhere that rocket launchers "don't count"?

What is a "military grade" knife, anyway? Sounds like another bullshit moniker applied to stuff people find scary and apply their irrational fears to.

You'll have to excuse me, but my time is valuable and reading through page after page of anti-gun rhetoric and fear mongering is something I don't intend to do. I only comment on what is currently being discussed, if I misunderstood, my fault.

[Wells]

A gun doesn't automatically kill people, it has to be used. The vast, overwhelming majority never are used to kill.

Drunk drivers kill. Hammers kill. Stairs kill. It is a 100% certainty that people will die both accidentally, and intentionally from all those things.

Arbitrary.

So you're saying stairs and hammers are just as lethal?

[Wells]

What is a "military grade" knife, anyway? Sounds like another bullshit moniker applied to stuff people find scary and apply their irrational fears to.

The military has quality standards for everything they get. Tensile strength and so on.

[Tinykong]

I thought I didn't have to explain what I wanted arms for.

Right, because setting off a nuclear device is such an awesome method of home defense. Plus, you can collect aging Cold War era bombs, and expose yourself and others to lethal levels of radiation. That's entirely in the same universe as owning and collecting firearms for the very same purposes.

Except, not.

[Wells]

Right, because setting off a nuclear device is such an awesome method of home defense. Plus, you can collect aging Cold War era bombs, and expose yourself and others to lethal levels of radiation. That's entirely in the same universe as owning and collecting firearms for the very same purposes.

Except, not.

How many Americans have been killed by nukes? Aside from cancer I can't think of one. So why do you want to punish people who haven't done anything wrong to stop something so rare?

I mean that's the exact argument the anti any regulation folks are using.

[Tinykong]

So you're saying stairs and hammers are just as lethal?

Based on what qualifications?

If it's total number of deaths, then yes, they are. You're more likely to die from falling down the stairs than you are to be killed by a rifle.

[Tinykong]

How many Americans have been killed by nukes? Aside from cancer I can't think of one. So why do you want to punish people who haven't done anything wrong to stop something so rare?

I mean that's the exact argument the anti any regulation folks are using.

Hey, I've never once championed total unrestricted access to firearms. I'm for all back ground checks, reasonable restrictions, not being able to own a GAU/8 gattling gun, etc., etc., etc.

I just fail to understand the logic behind an assault weapons ban when more people would be saved by spending time and energy on other things. Building code requirement that the elderly can't live in a home with stairs, bam, more lives saved than an assault weapons ban, and no Constitutional rights infringed.

[Wells]

Except you are comparing nuclear missiles, to guns. Your argument is so invalid I am literally flabbergasted.

What's the difference in this context? Nukes aren't an active danger to americans. Why are they banned at the expense of all the people who haven't killed someone with a nuke?

I can't have a nuclear reactor in my house despite the fact that no one has ever been killed with anything like it in America.

[Tinykong]

The military has quality standards for everything they get. Tensile strength and so on.

So, because something is durable, it's "military grade" and needs to be banned?

That type of blanket policy rooted in total blind ignorance is the very thing people are afraid of.

[Wells]

So, because something is durable, it's "military grade" and needs to be banned?

That type of blanket policy rooted in total blind ignorance is the very thing people are afraid of.

You asked what military grade meant.

I informed you.

[Tinykong]

You asked what military grade meant.

I informed you.

I know what it means, I was questioning the posters application of why that qualifies something as dangerous. I have military grade boots I wear to work, should I not be able to buy them because I could wear them and have a tactical advantage in an urban active shooter environment?




I mean, that Gerber knife is so tactical, you could totally use that to maim and kill at will. That Henckles knife...I dunno, looks pretty tame. That's probably safe.

[Kasierith]

Here is a hint: A nuclear missile is quite a bit more dangerous.
....
I mean..banning something because it looks more dangerous? Get out of here.

Could you please try to be a little more consistent? Distinguishing nuclear weaponry because of how dangerous is while saying that banning something else because it is more dangerous is wrong is kind of contradicting yourself.

[Extrazero8]

I thought I didn't have to explain what I wanted arms for.

Maybe you should explain what you think an arm is.

Also: Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device