Even Biden knows gun control won't do much.

[monovillage]

It derails it because it isn't relevant to the conversation at hand. the conversation is about gun control. Why does one side feel gun control is necessary? Not because of what a gun is but because they are used to kill and enable people to inflict greater violence in a shorter time than would otherwise be possible, or, in short, that the presence of guns makes the world and society more dangerous. On the other hand, those in favor of gun legality point to things like the ineffectiveness of gun regulations, the usefulness of firearms in home defense, and the legitimacy of the government punishing society as a whole by removing firearms for the potential acts of a relative few, or, at least those who aren't busy raising stupid arguments. Whether or not some tiny handful of guns are produced for firing hotdogs into stadiums or Olympic events or whatever other inane distraction you want to bring to the table doesn't fucking matter in the context of that discussion. It is worthless to the debate and if this is the best you've got, so are you.

I don't like it. I don't like it because this is an important issue and you lower the quality of discussion about it.

Bullshit, you're just another anti-gun asshole that wants to bulldoze over everyone's else arguments, bulldoze over the facts and spew lies and inaccuracies with being called on it. Sorry, but if you lie, you'll get called on it, next time don't fucking lie.

I don't like it because reasonable and rational people who would otherwise debate on the anti-gun control side are reluctant to take a position in line with yours because you are such a mouth-breathing moron. I don't like it because with people like you, productive discussion on the issues that matter because every thread on the topic gets buried under the freight train full of inane bullshit you insist on derailing every time the topic comes up. It would just be lovely if you and people like you would operate under the principle of if you have nothing intelligent to say just shut the fuck up but you won't. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you post what you do because you are angry, or bitter, or just entertained by being a troll in general or some combination of the above and aren't actually this stupid but you and those like you both hurt your cause an hurt the level of discourse in America. If you don't care or you just can't do any better, fine, whatever, continue on your one man crusade to convince the internet you don't have clue one, that's your prerogative and I can't stop you, but as one person opposed to gun control to another; knock it the fuck off, you make us all look ridiculous.

There's also some people like myself that are sick and tired of having the anti-gunners lie, lie, and lie some more about things they're ignorant about, the same way you're proving yourself ignorant and then expect pro-gun people to kiss their asses about the lies. If you want to lie about pink guns, or statistics or make a claim that all guns are designed as killing machines i'm going to correct the lie.

I'm saying that whether or not 99.999% of firearms are designed to kill people or a full 100% doesn't fucking matter.

Yes, it does matter, just because a pompous self righteous troll like yourself doesn't think it matters is unimportant.

Such an overwhelming majority of them are that belaboring the point of a handful of Olympic shooters and a single model of pistol in the entire history of guns aren't makes you look like a semantics whoring grammar Nazi at best and a drooling moron intentionally trying to divert the discussion at worst.

You're wrong and you're being intellectually dishonest when you want to pass off the lies the anti-gunners are saying to attack the truth.

 

[Ausm]

We all know murders won't stop in this Country so why waste the resources prosecuting them?

 

[fskimospy]

When you are reduced to the 'but target pistols exist' argument, you have lost. This doesn't mean that pro gun arguments don't have merit, it is just that some people aren't capable enough to make those arguments.

Lol, target pistols.

 

[HumblePie]

We all know murders won't stop in this Country so why waste the resources prosecuting them?

Really going to go with this strawman? Well all your continuous breathing of our oxygen isn't going to stop murders, save the environment, or bring about world peace. Put that carbon you put out might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So why don't you do us all a favor and stop? It just might save a child's life!!! Think of the children you greedy bastard.

 

[xj0hnx]

Honestly I don't know why anyone is trying to argue that guns aren't designed to kill, they are. I mean seriously, that half the consideration of ballistics testing, is tissue damage, penetration, etc ...Arguing their design is fucking stupid, it's their use that matters, the individuals intent. They are inanimate objects.

 

[monovillage]

Honestly I don't know why anyone is trying to argue that guns aren't designed to kill, they are. I mean seriously, that half the consideration of ballistics testing, is tissue damage, penetration, etc ...Arguing their design is fucking stupid, it's their use that matters, the individuals intent. They are inanimate objects.

Because I get tired of the lie that guns are only designed to kill, just like I get tired of the lie that only single shot muskets existed when the 2nd Amendment was passed.
Both statements are blatant lies told by anti-gunners.

 

[CrackRabbit]

When you are reduced to the 'but target pistols exist' argument, you have lost. This doesn't mean that pro gun arguments don't have merit, it is just that some people aren't capable enough to make those arguments.

Lol, target pistols.

Pretty much this, if you can't be honest about what 99.9% of guns are designed to do how can there be an honest conversation about how to curb gun violence.

Hint, if you weren't being so damn obtuse I would normally agree with you all.
2nd Amendment rights are important.

 

[HumblePie]

Because I get tired of the lie that guns are only designed to kill, just like I get tired of the lie that only single shot muskets existed when the 2nd Amendment was passed.
Both statements are blatant lies told by anti-gunners.

This.

Guns can kill. They aren't designed for that.

And as for the idiot that tried to state guns have been used in wars more than individual uses. LOL!!!! Yes, there have been a few big wars that use guns. But the vast majority of gun ownership and usage 24/7/365 is by civilians NOT military engagements. Even when talking about a military or police those individuals are a SMALL portion of the given population. Even they don't all use or require guns to complete their jobs. I didn't need a gun in the military to be a soldier although I was ready to use one if I had to. Nor is there a fucking war going on every day.

Even if there was a war going on, one side is usually the good side and one side the bad side. Wars are based off intolerance or resource greed. One of the two are the only reason for a war. People fighting wars are either on the side of seeking to subdue (intolerance) or conquer (resource greed) or to defend from someone seeking one of the two. Because there is both a good side and a bad side, the usage is a wash. Meaning the defending side is using firearms for a preservation purpose and the attacker is using a gun for a non defensive use.

Again, the VAST majority of gun usage in ALL of history around the globe has been for defensive/legal uses. To claim otherwise is the biggest fucking mental lie anyone can conceive of. People every day use firearms for target shooting, hunting, and defensive protection FAR more than people use them for crimes or wars. Hell, the roster of reservations at any one of the local gun ranges here would number in far excess of any crimes committed using guns for the same time frame in any of the largest cities of the world.

If you want to get fucking technical guns were designed to hurl a projectile at fast fucking speeds. It's nothing more than saying a damn rock is designed to kill. A rock can be picked up by anyone and smashed into someone's skull to kill. Or thrown at someone to kill them. Even worse is you can get fancy and use something like a sling, or bolo, or any other additional tools that turn a rock into a "designed" to kill instrument. You can even shoot rocks out of a shotgun and kill with them.

The point being that claiming a gun is only designed to kill and thus because it's a tool only designed to kill it should be banned is FUCKING STUPID. I was showing how it is not designed to kill as a counter argument to that piece of mental ineptitude of a talking point by gun grabbers. Of all the talking points people that are anti gun about that is the stupidest fucking argument to use.

Okay okay, lets say I give in and agree with the point, "Guns are only designed to kill" (of which I vehemently disagree with but just going along with the talking point for a moment).

So what? What the fuck does it matter? Sometimes you need a tool to do that job for a reason. Either for hunting or to save your life or the life of another. That taking a life is the ONLY reasonable action for a given scenario. That's the crux of it. It's a tool that has an effective means to accomplish that job with out a lot of collateral damage or skill required by the user to make effective use. Again, that talking point makes no fucking sense a damn argument to why guns should be banned or controlled.

 

[Lithium381]

Okay, lets say that guns are designed to kill, just to see what path it leads us down . . .what then? has that changed the argument?

Was the 2nd amendment designed to protect us from tyranny (and self protection) or was it designed for hunting? For all of these polititians saying "you don't need that for hunting". . . . no, i probably DON'T need 30 rounds for hunting, but that's not why I bought a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round mag. . . to take the argument there is dishonest.

 

[xj0hnx]

Because I get tired of the lie that guns are only designed to kill, just like I get tired of the lie that only single shot muskets existed when the 2nd Amendment was passed.
Both statements are blatant lies told by anti-gunners.

There is conflation between design, and intent. A gun that is not designed to be effective is pretty worthless. Take a 12G shotgun for example, you can load it with 00 Buck, or rock salt, same firearm, two completely different intents. On that same note, take a 9mm Sig Sauer, in the hands of a bank robber, dangerous, in the hands of a 20 something fending off home invaders trying to rob and rape her, a life saver, same firearm, completely different intent.

The argument needs to get away from the tool, and back to the user if it is actually ever going to be solved.

 

[thraashman]

There is conflation between design, and intent. A gun that is not designed to be effective is pretty worthless. Take a 12G shotgun for example, you can load it with 00 Buck, or rock salt, same firearm, two completely different intents. On that same note, take a 9mm Sig Sauer, in the hands of a bank robber, dangerous, in the hands of a 20 something fending off home invaders trying to rob and rape her, a life saver, same firearm, completely different intent.

The argument needs to get away from the tool, and back to the user if it is actually ever going to be solved.

The argument only started because someone was equating a drunk driving killing someone to guns killing someone (also used a hammer example). And I pointed out that it's a false equivalency because the designed purpose of a car is transportation, even if it can be accidentally or intentionally used to kill someone, its purpose is not to kill. And a gun is designed to kill. When you buy a gun you don't say "give me one that can't kill anything". Doesn't mean you have to use it to kill, but its designed purpose is to be able to kill something. Hell, I own swords, and while none of mine were created for battle use as they're props and replicas, I accept that the swords purpose is to kill. I have no intention to ever use them as such, I just think they're neat decoration.

 

[xj0hnx]

The argument only started because someone was equating a drunk driving killing someone to guns killing someone (also used a hammer example). And I pointed out that it's a false equivalency because the designed purpose of a car is transportation, even if it can be accidentally or intentionally used to kill someone, its purpose is not to kill. And a gun is designed to kill. When you buy a gun you don't say "give me one that can't kill anything". Doesn't mean you have to use it to kill, but its designed purpose is to be able to kill something. Hell, I own swords, and while none of mine were created for battle use as they're props and replicas, I accept that the swords purpose is to kill. I have no intention to ever use them as such, I just think they're neat decoration.

Yea, I get that, my point is that a firearm being designed to kill doesn't have anything to do with the debate. It's one of those "duh" things. The point is that they are simply a tool, and a tool has to be welded by a human to do anything regardless of it's designed purpose.

 

[HumblePie]

The argument only started because someone was equating a drunk driving killing someone to guns killing someone (also used a hammer example). And I pointed out that it's a false equivalency because the designed purpose of a car is transportation, even if it can be accidentally or intentionally used to kill someone, its purpose is not to kill. And a gun is designed to kill. When you buy a gun you don't say "give me one that can't kill anything". Doesn't mean you have to use it to kill, but its designed purpose is to be able to kill something. Hell, I own swords, and while none of mine were created for battle use as they're props and replicas, I accept that the swords purpose is to kill. I have no intention to ever use them as such, I just think they're neat decoration.

And my contention they aren't designed to kill in the same way that a sword is. A sword cut or stab is going to likely kill with far greater efficacy than a single bullet wound. I went into the history of it for a reason showing historically how the regular self protection gun was not designed for mass killing. Even original usage of "guns" in warfare were really canons and those are not the same as personal guns. Canons are designed for sapping purposes. While they can take out human targets, that was not their original design or intent either. They were meant to take down structures.

The contention and constant assertion that guns are designed for one thing only and that is to kill is something I take affront to. Nor am I alone with that. Guns are designed so that you never have to use them to take a human life with them but can be used for that purpose if it is needed as a last resort. The primary purpose of guns is to preserve life and not take it. Just like the primary purpose of a car is transportation and not taking lives. However, both tools are very capable and efficiently so at taking of lives.

The argument that goes forward to find that because guns are efficient at taking lives, there for must be banned, is also something that is stupidly asinine.

 

[Lithium381]

So have we come to an agreement: That regardless of the intent of a tool, weather it be to kill, or to transport, or to pound nails . . .. it's the person holding it that will ultimately decide its use. The tool itself has no intent. The person wielding it makes those choices. That's something we can agree on, no?

 

[xj0hnx]

So have we come to an agreement: That regardless of the intent of a tool, weather it be to kill, or to transport, or to pound nails . . .. it's the person holding it that will ultimately decide its use. The tool itself has no intent. The person wielding it makes those choices. That's something we can agree on, no?

Exactly. Trying to ban guns on the contention that they are designed to kill is just stupid, and irrelevant. They are inanimate objects that have to have humans put intent behind them for them to do anything.

 

[monovillage]

So have we come to an agreement: That regardless of the intent of a tool, weather it be to kill, or to transport, or to pound nails . . .. it's the person holding it that will ultimately decide its use. The tool itself has no intent. The person wielding it makes those choices. That's something we can agree on, no?

Agree 100%

 

[HumblePie]

personal responsibility. can't have that!

 

[thraashman]

So have we come to an agreement: That regardless of the intent of a tool, weather it be to kill, or to transport, or to pound nails . . .. it's the person holding it that will ultimately decide its use. The tool itself has no intent. The person wielding it makes those choices. That's something we can agree on, no?

And that's why gun control needs to focus more on regulating the person than the gun. Someone is supposed to be licensed to drive, that license can be revoked if they do things like DUI. Comprehensive and efficient background checks are on of the main things gun control should be focused on. It's impossible to prevent guns completely from getting to criminals, but we can do our best to make it more difficult.

 

[HumblePie]

And that's why gun control needs to focus more on regulating the person than the gun. Someone is supposed to be licensed to drive, that license can be revoked if they do things like DUI. Comprehensive and efficient background checks are on of the main things gun control should be focused on. It's impossible to prevent guns completely from getting to criminals, but we can do our best to make it more difficult.

No

Someone needs a license to drive in PUBLIC. I do not need a license to drive in Texas if I stay on my land. I do not need to register my vehicle or anything if I do not use public roadways.

To carry a concealed firearm in public I need a CHL which is the equivalent to needing a license to drive in public.

Also, that licensing requirement is different per state for vehicles. It is not mandated at a federal level for a reason. Neither should firearms.

 

[monovillage]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/11/ted-nugent-be-guest-state-union/

Ted Nugent to be guest at State of the Union

While other members of Congress are hosting gun-control advocates for Tuesday's State of the Union address, Rep. Steve Stockman has given one of his visitor's gallery tickets to Ted Nugent, the conservative gun-rights supporter.

"I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama," Mr. Stockman said in a statement announcing the choice. "After the address I'm sure Ted will have plenty to say."

After the Connecticut school shooting rampage last year, Mr. Obama announced he would push for major changes to the country's gun laws, and he is expected to renew that call in his Tuesday speech.


To add pressure, gun-control supporters in Congress have decided to invite victims of gun crimes to sit in the galleries.

Mr. Stockman's decision, though, adds a prominent gun-rights advocate and outspoken conservative to the gallery. Mr. Nugent, who has been a frequent contributor to The Washington Times' commentary section, is a member of the National Rifle Association's board.

I loled

 

[Bowfinger]

It derails it because it isn't relevant to the conversation at hand. the conversation is about gun control. Why does one side feel gun control is necessary? Not because of what a gun is but because they are used to kill and enable people to inflict greater violence in a shorter time than would otherwise be possible, or, in short, that the presence of guns makes the world and society more dangerous. On the other hand, those in favor of gun legality point to things like the ineffectiveness of gun regulations, the usefulness of firearms in home defense, and the legitimacy of the government punishing society as a whole by removing firearms for the potential acts of a relative few, or, at least those who aren't busy raising stupid arguments. Whether or not some tiny handful of guns are produced for firing hotdogs into stadiums or Olympic events or whatever other inane distraction you want to bring to the table doesn't fucking matter in the context of that discussion. It is worthless to the debate and if this is the best you've got, so are you.

I don't like it. I don't like it because this is an important issue and you lower the quality of discussion about it. I don't like it because reasonable and rational people who would otherwise debate on the anti-gun control side are reluctant to take a position in line with yours because you are such a mouth-breathing moron. I don't like it because with people like you, productive discussion on the issues that matter because every thread on the topic gets buried under the freight train full of inane bullshit you insist on derailing every time the topic comes up. It would just be lovely if you and people like you would operate under the principle of if you have nothing intelligent to say just shut the fuck up but you won't. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you post what you do because you are angry, or bitter, or just entertained by being a troll in general or some combination of the above and aren't actually this stupid but you and those like you both hurt your cause an hurt the level of discourse in America. If you don't care or you just can't do any better, fine, whatever, continue on your one man crusade to convince the internet you don't have clue one, that's your prerogative and I can't stop you, but as one person opposed to gun control to another; knock it the fuck off, you make us all look ridiculous.


I'm saying that whether or not 99.999% of firearms are designed to kill people or a full 100% doesn't fucking matter. Such an overwhelming majority of them are that belaboring the point of a handful of Olympic shooters and a single model of pistol in the entire history of guns aren't makes you look like a semantics whoring grammar Nazi at best and a drooling moron intentionally trying to divert the discussion at worst.

Well said, and right on the money. Several of us have expressed that same concern, that we support the Second Amendment but are loathe to publicly align ourselves with many of the ridiculous gun nuts. Their loud, fanatical, and often belligerent positions frighten those on the fence and drown out intelligent discussion. They are a much bigger threat to gun rights than the gun control crowd. For example, every time Spidey posts about guns I cringe, knowing that most people think, "I don't want that loon with guns. Maybe it would be better to outlaw them."

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/11/ted-nugent-be-guest-state-union/

Ted Nugent to be guest at State of the Union

I loled

It would be interesting to hear how the Secret Service responds, given Nugent's implied threats against Obama.

 

[Abraxas]

Bullshit, you're just another anti-gun asshole that wants to bulldoze over everyone's else arguments, bulldoze over the facts and spew lies and inaccuracies with being called on it. Sorry, but if you lie, you'll get called on it, next time don't fucking lie.

If you got that out of this:

but as one person opposed to gun control to another; knock it the fuck off, you make us all look ridiculous.

then I guess my benefit of the doubt was misplaced and you are every bit the illiterate dumbfuck you play on the internet. Moving on (to a different illiterate dumbfuck).

And as for the idiot that tried to state guns have been used in wars more than individual uses. LOL!!!! Yes, there have been a few big wars that use guns. But the vast majority of gun ownership and usage 24/7/365 is by civilians NOT military engagements. Even when talking about a military or police those individuals are a SMALL portion of the given population. Even they don't all use or require guns to complete their jobs. I didn't need a gun in the military to be a soldier although I was ready to use one if I had to. Nor is there a fucking war going on every day.

Right, because America is the whole of the universe and the level of gun ownership and usage in modern America is the norm for all the world for all of history, ain't that right? Never mind that countries like, well, most countries with a large military that aren't the US don't have the gun culture that we do but do consume large quantities of ammunition in training their soldiers and maintaining combat readiness. What's more, a lot of those nations with limited gun availability do fight wars, for example, when the Soviet Union was expanding in all directions. I'll ask again, if you can put up numbers showing these outlandish and ridiculous claims that most gunshots are fired in defense, by all means, put up.

Even if there was a war going on, one side is usually the good side and one side the bad side. Wars are based off intolerance or resource greed. One of the two are the only reason for a war. People fighting wars are either on the side of seeking to subdue (intolerance) or conquer (resource greed) or to defend from someone seeking one of the two. Because there is both a good side and a bad side, the usage is a wash. Meaning the defending side is using firearms for a preservation purpose and the attacker is using a gun for a non defensive use.

/facepalm

Spoken like a true child. It is incredibly rare in the modern age of war that one side be a bunch of mustache twirling villains and the other side the poor put upon saints who were minding their own business and doing nothing to antagonize or provoke a conflict. Hell, even some of the most clear cut conflicts in history as far as good and bad weren't as cut and dried as you are making them out to be. Even WWII had a lot of circumstances and tensions and escalation and provocation that led up to the war even if Hitler and the Nazis were unambiguously evil.

Again, the VAST majority of gun usage in ALL of history around the globe has been for defensive/legal uses.

I already demonstrated the defensive bit was bullshit, legal isn't really relevant to the conversation. If I fire off five hundred rounds to train me for the one shot I use to kill, that doesn't make it mostly good.

To claim otherwise is the biggest fucking mental lie anyone can conceive of.

Really? That is the single biggest mental lie anyone can conceive of? Even if you were right, and of course you aren't, seriously? Just how far up your own ass do you have to get before you become that self-absorbed in your cause?

People every day use firearms for target shooting, hunting, and defensive protection FAR more than people use them for crimes or wars. Hell, the roster of reservations at any one of the local gun ranges here would number in far excess of any crimes committed using guns for the same time frame in any of the largest cities of the world.

Really? Find me a roster at a gun range that matches up with Damascus right now. I'll wait.

If you want to get fucking technical guns were designed to hurl a projectile at fast fucking speeds. It's nothing more than saying a damn rock is designed to kill. A rock can be picked up by anyone and smashed into someone's skull to kill. Or thrown at someone to kill them. Even worse is you can get fancy and use something like a sling, or bolo, or any other additional tools that turn a rock into a "designed" to kill instrument. You can even shoot rocks out of a shotgun and kill with them.

The point being that claiming a gun is only designed to kill and thus because it's a tool only designed to kill it should be banned is FUCKING STUPID. I was showing how it is not designed to kill as a counter argument to that piece of mental ineptitude of a talking point by gun grabbers. Of all the talking points people that are anti gun about that is the stupidest fucking argument to use.

Okay okay, lets say I give in and agree with the point, "Guns are only designed to kill" (of which I vehemently disagree with but just going along with the talking point for a moment).

So what? What the fuck does it matter? Sometimes you need a tool to do that job for a reason. Either for hunting or to save your life or the life of another. That taking a life is the ONLY reasonable action for a given scenario. That's the crux of it. It's a tool that has an effective means to accomplish that job with out a lot of collateral damage or skill required by the user to make effective use. Again, that talking point makes no fucking sense a damn argument to why guns should be banned or controlled.

Has anyone made the argument guns should be banned because they are designed to kill people? Some have commented that that is a contributing factor given their relative lack of other uses, but I don't think I've seen anyone making the particular argument you are tilting against here.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well said, and right on the money. Several of us have expressed that same concern, that we support the Second Amendment but are loathe to publicly align ourselves with many of the ridiculous gun nuts. Their loud, fanatical, and often belligerent positions frighten those on the fence and drown out intelligent discussion. They are a much bigger threat to gun rights than the gun control crowd. For example, every time Spidey posts about guns I cringe, knowing that most people think, "I don't want that loon with guns. Maybe it would be better to outlaw them."

Yea, but they wouldn't be half as bad if it weren't for the anti-gun nut jobs that tell lie after lie, and saying shit like "AR-15's can shoot down planes", or the "I'm pro 2A, I think everyone should have a right to a hunting rifle, or a 10 shot handgun". Honestly, imo, if the gun control crowd actually made an educated argument once in a while it would help a lot, but 99% of the time, it's either ignorance, or emotion.

 

[xj0hnx]

Has anyone made the argument guns should be banned because they are designed to kill people? Some have commented that that is a contributing factor given their relative lack of other uses, but I don't think I've seen anyone making the particular argument you are tilting against here.

Yes, a couple people here have.