Guns (of their own volition) don’t kill people. Guns handled improperly by people can kill people (frequently those doing the improper handling). Guns used with deadly intent can kill people. Guns hurled with great force at the heads of people could probably kill people.
I don’t think anyone in this thread (who isn’t baiting or being a complete idiot) is advocating that untrained, and/or unsupervised people should be using firearms willy nilly. They are certainly not advocating that guns should be used as party favours for the rugrats. To keep bringing that up is poor form.
Are guns perfectly safe? Unattended and left alone, sure they are. In the hands of someone who is responsible and properly trained in their use, yes generally they are (though accidents can happen). In the hands of people without training, too much drinking or some other impediment to rational thought (including idiocy), then not so much. But the same can be said of a car, knife or nail gun. Your point?
Anyone making the “Guns don’t kill people–people kill people” argument with the straight face: don’t you feel, I dunno, vomitously disingenuous?
Yes, a gun requires a human agent to fire it. However, a gun is also a device that, whatever the intended purpose of a particular model, was originally invented for the express purpose of killing. It accelerates a small piece of a hard substance at such a velocity that it tears through vital organs and tissues in order to damage them beyond immediate or sometimes even potential repair.
Now, does that mean that guns are evil and scary and should be banned from the face of the earth for the sake of the children and puppies? No. But you’re doing yourselves no favors by batting your wide eyes and pretending your opponents are fucking retarded enough to believe that a gun is the functional equivalent of a dandelion. Because as much as you’d like to pretend otherwise, a crazy dude standing in front of me with a loaded gun is a lot more dangerous than a crazy dude standing in front of me with a handful of dandelion fluff.
So, yes, in the purely literal sense, guns do not kill people. What guns *do *do is make the killing of people much easier than most other tools at one’s disposal. And *that *is the relevant bit.
Yeah, and literally every time you post I have a picture of you urinating on a Star of David while breaking and entering, which at least has some factual basis in the stupid shit you’ve posted in the past.
Got anything besides gratuitous insults, now that we’ve exchanged a set?
That’s certainly true. On the other hand, my understanding of various self-defense drills is that within 20 feet or so, a crazy dude with a knife or tire iron is equally dangerous, or more so until he has the gun out and pointed.
To elaborate: One of the drills some police departments and self-defense courses use is set up as follows. You stand facing a target 20 feet away, with holstered pistol. A helper stands next to you facing the other direction. On a command from the instructor, you draw and fire two shots into the target while the helper takes off at a sprint. The helper usually can cover between 15-25 feet in the time it takes you to draw and fire–the purpose of the exercise is to prevent people from trying to be cowboys because it doesn’t work, but it also illustrates that there’s a surprisingly wide range band where guns lose effectiveness relative to, say, kitchen knives.
From my point of view, the relevant bit is that like any tool, a gun’s usage is in the hands of the user. I have a hard time conceptualizing the average gun as more or less dangerous than, say, a car–in terms of the aggregate ability of an uninstructed, unintentional, stupid, or malicious user to cause harm. Certainly the scale and locations of potential harm are very different.
Wouldn’t disagree. But I’d think that guns would have a larger effective radius, and guns are more effective against groups. (Your arm doesn’t get tired from swinging the gun at people’s skulls, and you don’t have to stop to pull it out after stabbing someone with it.)
Guns were designed to cause injury and death. Cars were designed for transportation, with the delightful side effect that they’re large hunks of steerable metal that can also cause injury and death. However, if someone wants to kill me, do you think they’re going to buy a gun or a car? The starting position of a gun is that it’s a tool designed to cause injury and/or death. It can be used for other things, but that does not change the reason it was invented, not does it change the fact that even a gun bought with no intention of ever shooting anything living with it still retains the potential to cause serious injury or death.
Again, I *do not *think guns are evil, and I *do *think they should be legal. I just want people to be realistic about what they have the potential to do instead of engaging in ridiculous fan-wankery sugar-coating. Because it’s that kind of ridiculous obtuseness that makes it very hard to have a fruitful discussion about gun rights in the U.S. (balanced by the “guns are magical evil sticks that radiate death” position on the other side).
Bear with me here:
If I own a cheese grater, and the only thing it has done in the past 15 years is to prop up a corner of my refrigerator to make it less wobbly…
it would be pretty disingenuous of me to claim that the purpose of cheese graters is not to grate cheese - and my particular use of a cheese grater is proof of that.
The primary function of a gun is to make a hole in a living thing, in order that you may then eat the (formerly) living thing, or to protect yourself from being killed yourself by the (formerly) living thing.
That a gun MAY be used for a secondary purpose (a hammer, for instance, or to get ventilation holes in your barn) does not eliminate it’s primary purpose.
Even target shooting may be seen to be simply operator training to make you more efficient at using the gun for it’s primary purpose.
Since the primary purpose of a gun is to kill living things, it is important that these tools be well regulated, so that living things are not inadvertently killed. Regulations may included limits on who can own certain kinds of guns, the type of training/licence required before you can own a gun, and where and how to store them.
My only issue is with the “NO REGULATIONS, NO LIMITS” zealots.
Those regulations already exist in every state to the degree that the state chooses to regulate them. You act like they don’t exist. They have always existed. Now, it may be that you think the regulations are too lax for your taste. In that case, by all means feel free to attempt to lobby for more stringent regulations.
With regard to what Una was saying to DragonAsh, wouldn’t those examples still involve some kind of human interaction? In other words, how is a gun laying on a table going to AD? How is a gun laying on a table going to catch on a branch? Can you rustle up anything like those two examples?
I follow all firearm laws.
The guns I build are for my own personal use, 922r compliant for the imported parts kits, are not for sale and never will be.
Believe you me, I have spend hours on the BATF website to make sure all is well with my hobby.
(OH NO, did I say hobby! That must mean guns are toys!!)
Anyone who argues that a Bullseye League , Match .22 is a gun designed for shooting living things is either disingenuous or intentionally ignorant.
Now that Ive disproven your premis that the primary function of any given gun is to kill things, can we agree on a more reasonable statement?
All guns (even air guns) are potentially lethal objects, no matter what their primary design is for (much like cars and knives). As such, and since guns are not going away, it makes sense to provide a reasonable, intelligently designed gun safety class in the default course of study for a student (in fact, I’d also include a Vehicle Safety course, as well as a financial responsibility course). Further, it makes sense to design intelligent, nonreactionary gun laws which are based in reality – and do not necessarily restrict firearm ownership).
Is my statement agreeable? Because if it is, we can work from there to have a reasonable discourse about what laws should or shouldn’t be on the books. And, in my opinion, there are both.
