Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 83 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 79 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

gun control

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Fri May 11, 2007 5:31 am

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
You load or fire a gun with intent to damage, injure or kill.

If there is intent, then the incidents you mention simply aren't accidents.

Road accidents kill more people than firearms in the US - ban cars?

Why else do you load a gun? You don't load it to make it look nicer.
You put the round in the firearm to have it come out the other end at extreme speed.

A gun has no peaceful purpose. Stairs have a peaceful purpose, as do cars.

Now, I have to reference the episode of the Simpsons where Marge tries to ban Itchy and Scratchy, because it seems very much like this to me.

To refresh your memory: Marge tries to get Itchy and Scratchy banned, and succeeds in getting it censored. At the end, when Michelangelo's David is being brought to the town, Marge is automatically expected to be against this, and isn't.

Now, here's this situation: I say I don't like guns, and would like them banned. And you expect me to be against every other cause of "unnatural" death that can possibly exist as well. I am not.

I am not against cars, stairs, computers, delivery men, tacos, dustbins or any of that.

I am against guns, because of their solely evil use. Please don't try and argue for guns by saying that other causes should be banned as well.

Gun death is not my main issue. Gun evil is - the deaths are just part of that.
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri May 11, 2007 5:51 am

I am against guns, because of their solely evil use. Please don't try and argue for guns by saying that other causes should be banned as well.

Gun death is not my main issue. Gun evil is - the deaths are just part of that.


You're missing the whole point - there is no such thing as "gun evil" - I have yet to see a gun that can pull its own trigger (ok, so if you want to argue against the existence of an autonomous version of one of these that's another matter) - humans are capable of remarkable evil, the gun is merely a tool that facilitates this. In the hands of a person with evil intent, anything from a piece of string to a rolled up newspaper can become a lethal weapon - heck, even bare hands can kill!

Of the millions of rounds that are fired every year, how many are actually fired with evil intent?

Take a look here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEWtaSkm2JI[/youtube]

All those bullets flying through the air, not a single living thing was harmed and yet look at the smiling redneck faces :D

I say I don't like guns, and would like them banned


What would you say to someone who said that they don't like spudguns, and would like the UK law enforcement to actively remove them from circulation (considering most of them already fall foul of existing firearm laws)? You can't deny that they have a great potential for damaging human life and property, and have no "peaceful" use - where do you draw the line?
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Fri May 11, 2007 7:57 am

You cannot deny a gun's use is automatically evil. I'm not saying that a gun itself is evil, but the intention of it's construction is. When a round is fired, it's practically impossible for it to not damage anything (not necessarily a living creature.)

As I said before, gun ranges and clay pidgeon shoots are fine. Spudguns fall under that recreational area.
How many intentional kills have been achieved with a spudgun?

I doubt that death by spudgun will ever become a major worry to the population.

If I was given a choice by a magical genie between:
1) Giving up spudguns, and also preventing all gun deaths, injury and shootings for as long as I stick with that.
2) Keeping things as they are.

Number 1 would be my choice in the merest of instants, and I doubt I would start spudgunning ever again. But I won't ever be given that choice, so I'll continue spudding, at whatever risk of being convicted.

I'll happily risk conviction for spudgunning if it keeps far more malicious firearms off the streets.

The next matter of point is that IMO, spudguns are a far greater source of entertainment than just spraying ammo into the air from a handgun/rifle.
Much less destructive and more enjoyable would seem to be a better situation to me.
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri May 11, 2007 8:15 am

You cannot deny a gun's use is automatically evil. I'm not saying that a gun itself is evil, but the intention of it's construction is. When a round is fired, it's practically impossible for it to not damage anything (not necessarily a living creature.)


The intention of its construction is destruction - for crying out loud, that's why guns are so friggin' great :D - but how that destruction is administered is down to the individual user. Is a man who shoots a bear that is about to attack his family an evil man? You're making sweeping generalisations here, at the expense of people who aren't that evil at heart.

As I said before, gun ranges and clay pidgeon shoots are fine. Spudguns fall under that recreational area.


If you keep a shotgun for clay pigeon shooting, what's to stop you from using it to commit a crime? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to own a gun. My guns are all licensed, and even though paperwork and bureaucracy are a [female doggy], I'm happy that there is at least some control over weapons. Even so, this does nothing to stop a criminal from obtaining a gun illegaly, so it's a false sense of security.

I doubt that death by spudgun will ever become a major worry to the population.


What's the acceptable death toll then? Are they still ok if 1 person gets killed a year? Maybe 5? 10? 50? Again, where do you draw the line?

The next matter of point is that IMO, spudguns are a far greater source of entertainment than just spraying ammo into the air from a handgun/rifle.


That's your opinion. Personally, the reason I bother with BBMGs is specifically because I can't get my hands on the lovely 6,000 rpm 7.62mm Minigun I'd prefer to have.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Fri May 11, 2007 8:26 am

Yeah, I'd love to mess around with a minigun as well, but it's unlikely to happen.

And now I'm a little confused as to how much and where our opinions differ.
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Fri May 11, 2007 8:41 am

Hence why I'm looking at the Marines.I need to get my hands on one of those miniguns :twisted:

And fellas I've found the one sole reason to keep firearms.Turtle shooting.I know it sounds crazy,my neighbors pond is infested with the critters and he told me to take them out.Box of shells and an hour later.I don't think I've had that much fun in a while.
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri May 11, 2007 8:57 am

joannaardway wrote:And now I'm a little confused as to how much and where our opinions differ.


I think we can both agree that uncontrolled access to guns would be impractical at best - but you seem to favour a more draconian form of control, for example I take it you agree with the UK's outright ban of hanguns for civillian ownership? I know many UK individuals who were passionate about their handgun shooting, and in spite of the fact that they were upstanding citizens who would likely have never commited an offence with their pistols, they had their hobby unfairly taken away because of the folly of a few insane individuals. That's not the sort of gun control I support.

Also, you have to acknowledge that all the legislation in the world isn't going to stop gun crime. Look at the UK, people are still getting injured by hanguns at the same rate as before the ban, in spite of the fact that technically only the police should have them.

Turtle shooting


Steel cored AP ammunition then? :D Or a load of double ought in a 12 bore?
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Fri May 11, 2007 11:17 am

I would be in favour of allowing guns for recreational use (thus why I'm a spudgunner) or pest control purposes, but unfortunately, anyone who had a firearm(s) for either of those purposes could easily turn it/them to evil ends.
I'm not really in favour of any firearm intended for use against the person in any form of assualt or defence.

My real point is that strict gun control or bans definately reduce the chance of anyone gaining a firearm for criminal ends.

To briefly mention a recent example (apologies if I upset or offend anyone), the very regrettable Virginia Tech incident used firearms bought legally.
If the gunman hadn't been able to buy those firearms due to some legal check or measure, then the event might possibly have been avoided. That's not to say that it wouldn't be possible for him to have acquired illegal arms, but I would presume that it would be much harder.
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Fri May 11, 2007 12:03 pm

joanaardway, that had nothing to do with firearms bans.Cho, should not have been able to get a gun anyways since he was crazy.It was an filing error.And Virginia had a loophole.That's legislation for ya.

Jack,I went plinking, 20 gauge with cheapo federal ammo.I was considering my 8mm. Mauser and some FMJ :D I'll have to see what my neighbor says.
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Fri May 11, 2007 12:24 pm

But he still bought it from a gun shop, rather than off the black market, which is my point.

And filing errors shouldn't occur on a matter of this importance.
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri May 11, 2007 1:09 pm

joannaardway wrote:And filing errors shouldn't occur on a matter of this importance.


Legislation is a human institution, there will always be errors. The only real solution would be to un-invent the gun - not a likely outcome - and even then, there would be people calling for tougher spear restrictions, making CCR (Concealed Carry Rocks) illegal and limiting slingshot ammunition to below 0.50" :roll:

Apparently the Knights of old wanted crossbows to be outlawed, as they gave the humble peasant the capability to knock down a mounted nobleman in his expensive armour. Food for thought.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Fri May 11, 2007 3:34 pm

ok, i dont feel like typing too much, but i do love to shoot trap and skeet. that kid Cho at VA tech was a psycho, pure and simple. he didn't kill out of rage, vengance, spite, he was a freakin whack job. no amount of paper would have stopped him from doing what he did. the only issue that everyone made was the loophole not allowing them to put him in a mental hospital or notify his family. he probably would have put a pipe bomb in the school, killing even more people. lets just say, i dont think the halocasut was casued by gun control, and i do infact believe that if no person on the earth had a gun, including military, citizens and other people, life would be good. the only issue is that it would be a [female doggy] to hunt deer without some other kind of projectile weapon, and we would arrive at the same issue. i really do wish that all people could own guns and experience the fun of shooting without some freakin idiot screwing it up for everyone else.
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: paaiyan » Fri May 11, 2007 3:49 pm

I would be for some measure of gun control if I knew that it would work, problem is, the bad guys will always have guns, so I want one too.
  • 0

"Who ever said the pen was mightier than the sword, obviously, never encountered automatic weapons."
-General Douglass MacArthur

Read my dog's blog - Life of Kilo
User avatar
paaiyan
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 1

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Fri May 11, 2007 4:30 pm

damn straight, that is why i wouldn't want gun laws to get any stronger for the time being, if someone finally figures out how to keep guns away from everyone then i would go for it.
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Sat May 12, 2007 4:32 pm

Whackjob or not, the guy was still handed guns by a legal supplier, which he then used to kill innocent students.
A pipe bomb wouldn't have the same impact.

The argument that banning legal gun supplies wouldn't affect criminals has several very well publicised counter points.

As far as I know, a very significant proportion of mass shootings use legally supplied guns, including the "I don't like Mondays" incident.
Ok, the gun wasn't supplied directly to the shooter in that case, but it was still legally supplied to her father, and she then had access to it.

Ok, smaller incidents on the streets may not be quite the same, but any gun-toting country should at least make an effort to not put legally put guns in the hands of people who will use them for extreme evil.

I would rather that 10 honest men left the gunstore empty handed than have one bastard leave with a deadly firearm.
And for that reason, at least some measure of gun control is necessary. Perhaps not a total ban, but at least something.
  • 0

Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'