Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[Ace Yonder]

And yet the top kill counts are not firearms.

In many instances they are, especially when you consider the total number of instances. If this were the Olympics, bombs may be the country that takes the gold, but firearms take the silver, the bronze, and the five trailing near-medalists.

 

[Harrekin]

Not necessarily correct, we have one of the lowest rates of private gun ownership on the planet, yet gun murders account for a statistically high level of our homicide rate.

And when all armed violent crime is taken into account, our crime rate is similar to the US, just more people get stabbed, ran over (funnily enough only happened the other day, considering the conversation here a day or two ago about a "death-plow") or beaten to death.

From my experience...Id rather have a gun to shoot the guy with the weapon, but I don't have that option...unless they invade my home

Ace Yonder, you lefty retard, did you not read the above?

Or was it simply too complicated to understand for you?

Disagrees with your "gerns er berd" outlook?

Tough shit, it's fact, darling.

You need a hug?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

In many instances they are, especially when you consider the total number of instances. If this were the Olympics, bombs may be the country that takes the gold, but firearms take the silver, the bronze, and the five trailing near-medalists.

please stfu

 

[Beefbisquit]

No, no, no. Slow song, OK? Take it easy.

Saves are, saved from horror. I don't think it is complicated. Home invasion or assault defeats. OK? Your life is at stake? Intruders in the home. Assault. Defend. What is wrong that this seems so complicated?

And I guess you have seen no horror. It is Unmistakeable when it is happening, and though it is with the element of surprise against you, it can turn into slow sick fun, and not for you. I have been it it.

One time, I yelled SHOTGUN. It worked...barely. Gun save. Why do you resist absorbing this? Seriously, it is so simple.

I'm looking at gun saves for what they really are. An unknown.

You are counting them as guaranteed life saving incidents, 'saves', as in 'saved lives'. If you want to look at 'saves from horror', you need to look at 'horror created' with guns as well.

If you want to say every 'save', 'saved someones life' (which doesn't follow) you're being dishonest.

The times peoples lives were genuinely saved by a firearm can be realistically compared to the times firearms have killed people.

The times firearms acted as a deterrent can be realistically compared to the times firearms were used as the opposite of a deterrent, e.g. a tool to commit crimes with.

You don't get to count the amount of times a murder was committed with a firearm vs the amount of times firearms deterred a criminal for any reason. I mean, you can compare them, it just doesn't many any sense to.

Unless you're trying to win an argument by any means necessary (even illogical means), right Doer?

 

[Doer]

I'm looking at gun saves for what they really are. An unknown.

You are counting them as guaranteed life saving incidents, 'saves', as in 'saved lives'. If you want to look at 'saves from horror', you need to look at 'horror created' with guns as well.

If you want to say every 'save', 'saved someones life' (which doesn't follow) you're being dishonest.

The times peoples lives were genuinely saved by a firearm can be realistically compared to the times firearms have killed people.

The times firearms acted as a deterrent can be realistically compared to the times firearms were used as the opposite of a deterrent, e.g. a tool to commit crimes with.

You don't get to count the amount of times a murder was committed with a firearm vs the amount of times firearms deterred a criminal for any reason. I mean, you can compare them, it just doesn't many any sense to.

Unless you're trying to win an argument by any means necessary (even illogical means), right Doer?

I am not trying to win an arguement. How is that even possible? You seem capable of discussion but you fade in and out. Debate has rules by the way, and a Judge.

Have you ever won and argument? It has no meaning. What does it even look like. I have never seen anyone win an argument.

So, when someone brings a gun into my home he creates horror for me.

The rest seems foolish tap dancing around a simple concept. But you cannot dissemble self protection. And yes, guns bring horror. That's why we Keep and Bear battle rifles and not pop-guns.

You cannot stamp out guns. So, who is trying to win by ignoring the so obvious? You are.

Only guns or the MOST MASSIVE LUCK can save us from that horror and it is still a close run thing and you might just get to watch a family member get brutalized. I did. Once. Then I realized, my life will go down before that get going again. Have you decided when your life goes down?

The next two times I fought with brains and teeth even. I pretended. But, never again.

Meanwhile you Philosophy types could never get vicious enough to defend yourself with a gatlin gun.

So, you are just arguing with yourself. I don't argue in forum. I am either entertaining or educating myself.

I put you in face with some very important facts. No debate about that.

Take or leave.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I am not trying to win an arguement. How is that even possible? You seem capable of discussion but you fade in and out. Debate has rules by the way, and a Judge.

Have you ever won and argument? It has no meaning. What does it even look like. I have never seen anyone win an argument.

LOL - thanks? Or Thanks for the insult.... not sure which.

So, when someone brings a gun into my home he creates horror for me.

Agreed. But 'Horror' in this case, means virtually anything.

The rest seems foolish tap dancing around a simple concept. But you cannot dissemble self protection. And yes, guns bring horror. That's why we Keep and Bear battle rifles and not pop-guns.

I'm not attempting to disassemble self-protection. I'm saying there is a difference between using a gun to protect your life, and using a gun to deter someone from doing something you don't want them to do. Does stopping a 14 year old kid from stealing a potted flower from your yard, count as a save? I have, and neither do you, no way of knowing how many of those 'saves' were life threatening. That's my point.

And yes, it does matter.

You cannot stamp out guns. So, who is trying to win by ignoring the so obvious? You are.

I have never suggested stamping out guns. I'm just looking at the situation objectively, attempting to see where the biggest problems lie, (it appears to be with gangs, and stolen/smuggled guns) and looking for possible solutions to fight the disproportionately high amount of gun crime in the USA.

You, at least appear to, think there are absolutely zero problems with gun laws int he USA, everything is perfect, and no changes need to be made to any rules or regulations. I feel this position is as flawed as the people who think guns are evil, communist, baby-killing machines. There is a middle ground, that promotes bith freedom to own and operate firearms as well as promotes greater safety and responsibility with firearms.

Only guns or the MOST MASSIVE LUCK can save us from that horror and it is still a close run thing and you might just get to watch a family member get brutalized. I did. Once. Then I realized, my life will go down before that get going again. Have you decided when your life goes down?

I have. I served in the Military for four years. I trained in FIBUA. I was my sections C9 gunner and 2IC. I understand the commitment required.

The next two times I fought with brains and teeth even. I pretended. But, never again.

Meanwhile you Philosophy types could never get vicious enough to defend yourself with a gatlin gun.

Assertion based on..... nothing. Try me. My two dogs and my Rem model 870 will make a counter argument to your statement.

So, you are just arguing with yourself. I don't argue in forum. I am either entertaining or educating myself.

I put you in face with some very important facts. No debate about that.

Take or leave.

You are, regadless of what you want to call it, arguing with me. Debating/arguing, same shit, different pile. Call it whatever you want, you're not changing the content with a label. lol

You didn't really touch on my points though.

We should be looking @ Horror caused by firearms VS Horror saved by firearms for a realistic look at the stats. I'd actually be very interested in seeing those stats, one way or the other. You are attempting to make a utilitarian argument fro guns, so we'd need to assure that guns are actually on the 'plus' side of the exchange. (Not suggesting they aren't, but the stats you were suggesting earlier in the thread don't make for an accurate comparison).

 

[Doer]

In the personal trauma of fear for your life? You think that has no difintion?

Be honest. Have you ever had anyone try to assault the women, in your home. Do you have any?

So, you think horror is un-defined? I know what it is. You don't. But why be unwilling to empathize with those that have been in it?

You think it cannot happen to you?

Why have a gun if you cannot be vicious? It isn't a toy for you, or is it?

 

[Doer]

And tell me why I should chance whether home invader intends to kill us all and burn us in bed?

I'm saying, you don't know about it. Slow sick fun, in your home on you. You have no idea. And it is something where is it best to kill first and explain it later.

You want to say there are no gun saves, since you have never been in that Fear.

This isn't Philosophy were you get to dissemble the points of protection and what is horror or not.

YOU DON"T KNOW. And Philosophy just circles the drain in this discussion, IMO. Worthless because you are a virgin to real fear.

 

[kelly4]

please stfu

I second that, third it, and the next five...

 

[Harrekin]

LOL - thanks? Or Thanks for the insult.... not sure which.


Agreed. But 'Horror' in this case, means virtually anything.



I'm not attempting to disassemble self-protection. I'm saying there is a difference between using a gun to protect your life, and using a gun to deter someone from doing something you don't want them to do. Does stopping a 14 year old kid from stealing a potted flower from your yard, count as a save? I have, and neither do you, no way of knowing how many of those 'saves' were life threatening. That's my point.

And yes, it does matter.



I have never suggested stamping out guns. I'm just looking at the situation objectively, attempting to see where the biggest problems lie, (it appears to be with gangs, and stolen/smuggled guns) and looking for possible solutions to fight the disproportionately high amount of gun crime in the USA.

You, at least appear to, think there are absolutely zero problems with gun laws int he USA, everything is perfect, and no changes need to be made to any rules or regulations. I feel this position is as flawed as the people who think guns are evil, communist, baby-killing machines. There is a middle ground, that promotes bith freedom to own and operate firearms as well as promotes greater safety and responsibility with firearms.



I have. I served in the Military for four years. I trained in FIBUA. I was my sections C9 gunner and 2IC. I understand the commitment required.



Assertion based on..... nothing. Try me. My two dogs and my Rem model 870 will make a counter argument to your statement.



You are, regadless of what you want to call it, arguing with me. Debating/arguing, same shit, different pile. Call it whatever you want, you're not changing the content with a label. lol

You didn't really touch on my points though.

We should be looking @ Horror caused by firearms VS Horror saved by firearms for a realistic look at the stats. I'd actually be very interested in seeing those stats, one way or the other. You are attempting to make a utilitarian argument fro guns, so we'd need to assure that guns are actually on the 'plus' side of the exchange. (Not suggesting they aren't, but the stats you were suggesting earlier in the thread don't make for an accurate comparison).

You COMPLETELY gloss over the fact the problem is more than NINETY PERCENT gang-related.

And guess what?

Those people are generally disallowed legally carry firearms because of their convictions, notwithstanding that most of the weapons these gang bangers use are federally restricted weapons anyways.

So...these jerkoffs have access to such tremendous firepower and yet you claim stolen weapons are the problem?

Do they count as stolen if the GPS locators are removed and the weapons just let walk over the Mexican border, with US border agents then murdered with these very fucking same weapons?

If you truely want to be objective, legal access to firearms is completely the wrong place to be looking.

 

[Doer]

You COMPLETELY gloss over the fact the problem is more than NINETY PERCENT gang-related.

And guess what?

Those people are generally disallowed legally carry firearms because of their convictions, notwithstanding that most of the weapons these gang bangers use are federally restricted weapons anyways.

So...these jerkoffs have access to such tremendous firepower and yet you claim stolen weapons are the problem?

Do they count as stolen if the GPS locators are removed and the weapons just let walk over the Mexican border, with US border agents then murdered with these very fucking same weapons?

If you truely want to be objective, legal access to firearms is completely the wrong place to be looking.

Of course, you are right about this.

But, which "side" do you think is interested in maintaining divisive gangland down to the block level?

That' right. Both. Both parties are snakes in the grass of reason. That is the profession.

So, the Rob Roy, and I agree on this one. Oh how I wish there was no need for lying Politics and oh how I wish people would behave themselves.

 

[Doer]

The simple fact is we need guns since both sides maintain gangland to accuse the other.

 

[Beefbisquit]

You COMPLETELY gloss over the fact the problem is more than NINETY PERCENT gang-related.

I have never suggested stamping out guns. I'm just looking at the situation objectively, attempting to see where the biggest problems lie, (it appears to be with gangs, and stolen/smuggled guns) and looking for possible solutions to fight the disproportionately high amount of gun crime in the USA.

I don't consider that 'COMPLETELY gloss[ing] over the fact'. Although, you apparently 'glossed over' what I wrote without reading it.

And guess what?

Those people are generally disallowed legally carry firearms because of their convictions, notwithstanding that most of the weapons these gang bangers use are federally restricted weapons anyways.

So...these jerkoffs have access to such tremendous firepower and yet you claim stolen weapons are the problem?

The most common weapons used aren't 'federally restricted' weapons. They're handguns. Plain and simple. Define 'restricted'.... are you referring to Class III weapons?

Do they count as stolen if the GPS locators are removed and the weapons just let walk over the Mexican border, with US border agents then murdered with these very fucking same weapons?

That's a separate issue. A real one, but separate. I'd like to see the stats on guns coming into/out of the USA illegally... I wish criminals were better book keepers. lol

If you truely want to be objective, legal access to firearms is completely the wrong place to be looking.

I'm not suggesting legal access to firearms should be restricted. I'm suggesting legal firearms, turn into illegal firearms when they're stolen. Preventing theft, would see almost 250,000 less guns per year fall into the hands of criminals.

Impossible to completely stop, absolutely possible to mitigate.

 

[Harrekin]

I have never suggested stamping out guns. I'm just looking at the situation objectively, attempting to see where the biggest problems lie, (it appears to be with gangs, and stolen/smuggled guns) and looking for possible solutions to fight the disproportionately high amount of gun crime in the USA.

I don't consider that 'COMPLETELY gloss[ing] over the fact'. Although, you apparently 'glossed over' what I wrote without reading it.



The most common weapons used aren't 'federally restricted' weapons. They're handguns. Plain and simple. Define 'restricted'.... are you referring to Class III weapons?



That's a separate issue. A real one, but separate. I'd like to see the stats on guns coming into/out of the USA illegally... I wish criminals were better book keepers. lol



I'm not suggesting legal access to firearms should be restricted. I'm suggesting legal firearms, turn into illegal firearms when they're stolen. Preventing theft, would see almost 250,000 less guns per year fall into the hands of criminals.

Impossible to completely stop, absolutely possible to mitigate.

Well legal cars become potential killing machines when stolen, should we institute regulations that you have to lock up your car in a giant safe every night?

You should also have to lock up the knives in your kitchen, less they're stolen and used to stab someone.

Oh oh! Lock up your toolbox too, that's a treasure trove of malicious intent in the wrong hands.

Fact is, over 90% of the problem is gangland related. Yet you blame the tool, instead of the person using it.

Yes, people should lock up their guns when they're going out and they'll be sitting there doing nothing, it's common sense, might even stop you getting shot by your own gun should your kid come home from school when you're out and find it, etc.

But legislating isn't going to help the problem one bit, people will still forget/not care and then if it's stolen it's stolen, regardless of if they're forced to own a gun-safe.

Lack of a gun registry means you don't have to report it anyway, so you're unlikely to be punished, even with a new law on the books.

 

[spazatak]

Well legal cars become potential killing machines when stolen, should we institute regulations that you have to lock up your car in a giant safe every night?

You should also have to lock up the knives in your kitchen, less they're stolen and used to stab someone.

Oh oh! Lock up your toolbox too, that's a treasure trove of malicious intent in the wrong hands.

Fact is, over 90% of the problem is gangland related. Yet you blame the tool, instead of the person using it.

Yes, people should lock up their guns when they're going out and they'll be sitting there doing nothing, it's common sense, might even stop you getting shot by your own gun should your kid come home from school when you're out and find it, etc.

But legislating isn't going to help the problem one bit, people will still forget/not care and then if it's stolen it's stolen, regardless of if they're forced to own a gun-safe.

Lack of a gun registry means you don't have to report it anyway, so you're unlikely to be punished, even with a new law on the books.

A guns primary purpose is to kill... Cars not so much

 

[Harrekin]

A guns primary purpose is to kill... Cars not so much

A gun's purpose depends entirely on the biological parts it has.

I suggest we review American Dads take on it... *puts his gun on the counter* "Gun, kill someone"... "Gun?!"

How many old people you see going on rampages with firearms? Iv seen multiple videos of old people fending off scumbags because they're armed when otherwise they'd be a crime statistic.

Its all about intent, plain and simple.

 

[Dr Kynes]

A gun's purpose depends entirely on the biological parts it has.

I suggest we review American Dads take on it... *puts his gun on the counter* "Gun, kill someone"... "Gun?!"

How many old people you see going on rampages with firearms? Iv seen multiple videos of old people fending off scumbags because they're armed when otherwise they'd be a crime statistic.

Its all about intent, plain and simple.

if those old people simply submitted to the chav's demands that they "give it up" then the situation would not have escalated.

clearly young men in hoodies swilling cheap booze and robbing old people at knife point wouldnt actually hurt anybody.

only Guns do that

 

[kelly4]

A guns primary purpose is to kill... Cars not so much

My guns purpose is to keep people from killing me.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Well legal cars become potential killing machines when stolen, should we institute regulations that you have to lock up your car in a giant safe every night?

We just had this discussion, but regarding rocks. Different things, need to be handled differently. People need to apply a thought process, instead of using black and white thinking, and blanket statement. Cars get used as a tool, far more frequently than guns. The entire infrastructure and economy of the world, is dependent on vehicles. The world is not dependent on civilians owning guns.

You should also have to lock up the knives in your kitchen, less they're stolen and used to stab someone.

Knives aren't used nearly as often in crimes as handgun, and are at a significant disadvantage to a firearm.

Oh oh! Lock up your toolbox too, that's a treasure trove of malicious intent in the wrong hands.

Argument from absurdity. Not worth responding to.

Fact is, over 90% of the problem is gangland related. Yet you blame the tool, instead of the person using it.

No, not at all. You've said that a few times, and I agreed a few times. You don't seem to understand what agreeing is. Is this your second language? The problem is gangs with illegal guns, for the most part.

Yes, people should lock up their guns when they're going out and they'll be sitting there doing nothing, it's common sense, might even stop you getting shot by your own gun should your kid come home from school when you're out and find it, etc.

But legislating isn't going to help the problem one bit, people will still forget/not care and then if it's stolen it's stolen, regardless of if they're forced to own a gun-safe.

They might, but that's just your opinion. Here in Canada, people follow the rules for the most part. One of the arguments conservatives love to make is that criminals don't follow laws, but that most people e.g. honest gun owners, are law-abiding, citizens. So, what is it? Are gun owners good, law abiding citizens, that would follow a new law if put in place, or are they not law abiding citizens that would willfully break the law?

Lack of a gun registry means you don't have to report it anyway, so you're unlikely to be punished, even with a new law on the books.

This is possible. Most people who own firearms, would report them stolen, if they were in fact stolen. If you're a law abiding citizen, such as the common claim states, why would you not report it, to attempt to get your firearms back? If my Rem Model 7 got lifted, I'd be LIVID, and would take any measure possible to get it back.

 

[Beefbisquit]

My guns purpose is to keep people from killing me.

That might be a side use, but that's not a guns intention.

It just so happens that the best defense for someone using a gun for its intended purpose, is in fact, using another gun to try to kill them first.