|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11282553)
I am guessing that you have never gone shooting?
Me neither until a couple of years ago, and up to that point I too was of the opinion that guns must be for killing and destroying. Stats seem to show that gun ownership is no more dangerous than car ownership. It is taken seriously, there are many rules and regulations, and they seem to work here in Canada pretty well. The prime purpose is not at all important, its the end results that matter. I'd paint an analogy for you, but I wouldnt know what else to call it:p I also practice archery in Canada not for hunting just at the range I personally believe in having the tools required for 'survival' (not that I'm a doomsday prepper or anything, basic survival skills are a must IMO). I would not like to see guns banned or even regulated that much further than having mental health checks and re-licensing every year or two. I just found your comparison between guns and cars extremely... well I'll keep it civil. |
Re: Guns
I think gun-related sprees definitely get more press.
If you Google mass stabbings, there are so many, all over the world and also including the US. There's also vehicular ones, a good example being this nut-job; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-13-more.html Generally it is down to a person who has 'unravelled', so as others have said, better dealing of this would reduce, but would never eliminate these instances. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 11282523)
Looking at the statistics and usage is probably the best way to rationalise with some one, like yourself, who doesn't seem to understand that a gun is designed to kill and destroy and the other objects you keep referring too have other prime purposes.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11282588)
Could you please explain to me why the vast majority of the armies in the world currently use a calibre of round for their soldiers' primary weapon that is not intended to kill if all guns are "designed to kill"?
Welcome back, btw. :) |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 11282589)
The gun is designed to kill. The bullet is designed to maim, which takes much more enemy resources to deal with.
Welcome back, btw. :) I am aware of the philosophy but I think you have it the wrong way around. The effect of the bullet depends upon the bullet. Bullets that can be fired from the same weapon can be specifically designed to maim or to kill, without the weapon being modified in any way. I doubt that any sane person would try to argue than a rifle used by a biathlon participant, or an Olympic target shooter, are designed to kill. As I am sure you will appreciate, no one could seriously wish to kill anyone while wearing multi coloured spandex |
Re: Guns
I've said it before and you shouted me down - if you don't make an effort to understand the why of these shooting rampages there are going to be more and more of them. I've owned guns for over 45 years. I have bags of experience shooting from pellet guns to howitzers almost all my life and hunted almost all my life and I've read the same opinions from you or people like you (opinion-wise) on this forum before. It's like staring at an Escher staircase. What about the shootings that take place from cars? All you statisticians..... (If it takes a chicken and a half a day and a half to lay an egg and a half how long does it take a grasshopper with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle?) I don't know if any of you should have guns, but that isn't my job. If you don't like guns don't have one; same argument as abortions. There are some semi-auto rifles that are sporting classics, nothing military about them, btw, other than that they are semi-auto. They usually have 5 rd magazines so the short mag or conversion kit sold for assault rifles isn't required. I would consider banning those over-reacting, like (feel free to correct me) Australia banning pump action shotguns because someone went nuts with one. Oswald used a cheap Carcano bolt action but he was a good shot, he could feasibly done it with a muzzle loader.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11282593)
Thank you.
I am aware of the philosophy but I think you have it the wrong way around. The effect of the bullet depends upon the bullet. Bullets that can be fired from the same weapon can be specifically designed to maim or to kill, without the weapon being modified in any way. I doubt that any sane person would try to argue than a rifle used by a biathlon participant, or an Olympic target shooter, are designed to kill. As I am sure you will appreciate, no one could seriously wish to kill anyone while wearing multi coloured spandex What is the answer if it's not to cause resource-expensive injury instead of death? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by caretaker
(Post 11282617)
I've said it before and you shouted me down - if you don't make an effort to understand the why of these shooting rampages there are going to be more and more of them. I've owned guns for over 45 years. I have bags of experience shooting from pellet guns to howitzers almost all my life and hunted almost all my life and I've read the same opinions from you or people like you (opinion-wise) on this forum before. It's like staring at an Escher staircase. What about the shootings that take place from cars? All you statisticians..... (If it takes a chicken and a half a day and a half to lay an egg and a half how long does it take a grasshopper with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle?) I don't know if any of you should have guns, but that isn't my job. If you don't like guns don't have one; same argument as abortions. There are some semi-auto rifles that are sporting classics, nothing military about them, btw, other than that they are semi-auto. They usually have 5 rd magazines so the short mag or conversion kit sold for assault rifles isn't required. I would consider banning those over-reacting, like (feel free to correct me) Australia banning pump action shotguns because someone went nuts with one. Oswald used a cheap Carcano bolt action but he was a good shot, he could feasibly done it with a muzzle loader.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by AlmostThere12
(Post 11282578)
There's also vehicular ones, a good example being this nut-job; Doesn't sound very efficient does it. He should have been allowed a gun and done it properly. |
Re: Guns
Guys alone in the woods together shooting at things. Sounds gay.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11281117)
Your first paragraph is semantic bollocks. We're not talking about starting pistols or signal flares. And there isn't a gun designed for making holes in anything (pieces of paper upwards) that can't be used to make holes in people. Nor are we talking about farmers and pest control operatives.
And a flare gun is technically a firearm. Derrick Bird owned guns for pest control, .22 rifle and a double-barrel shotgun. No-one ever seriously suggests that you could ban those for that purpose, yet look what he did in Cumbria. As to the second paragraph, I thought I'd expressed pretty clearly my opinion that comparing gun ownership to car ownership is as useful an exercise as comparing ravens to writing-desks. What is the point you're trying to make? That it should be harder to own a car, or easier to own a gun - or that, in fact, cars and guns are different and there is necessarily a different path to licensing and ownership? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11281121)
No. No, it's not. Shooting clays may be your primary purpose, but the gun was designed as an instrument of death. Period.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by London Mike
(Post 11281468)
Guns have absolutely no place in society. Honestly, who thinks it's a sensible idea to introduce kids to firearms "for fun"?
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian
(Post 11281212)
People with guns kill people. A gun laid on the ground will not kill you unless handled by another person. Now the question is why is that gun being allowed to be laid on the ground or under the pillow or propped up against the back door.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11282203)
It would be interesting to know what the UK gun murder statistics are pre/post Dunblane? Whether there is conclusive evidence that can be draw from the tightening of regulations then.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:58 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.