Firearms

[Raven]

So, more news from the US of A has made it to British shores in the form of two deaths and several injuries involving firearms on the streets of New York.

I'm not even surprised any more.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Raven

[Rewjeo]

A guy killed his former boss, attacked the police when they showed up, and so he got shot by the police and died. As far as I have read, no one's quite sure how the nine people got injured, (did the shooter fire at them, or were they caught in the crossfire?) but this could have been remarkably similar even with guns banned. The man, say, stabs his boss, charges the police. Police fire, and probably pretty frantically because you don't have a lot of time to stop someone who's running at you with a knife, people still get injured in the crossfire, two people are still dead. Or maybe the "shooter" actually shot at the people who were injured, and now he charges into a crowd of people with a knife drawn. That could very well end up worse than this.

[1st Mate Bob]

A guy killed his former boss, attacked the police when they showed up, and so he got shot by the police and died. As far as I have read, no one's quite sure how the nine people got injured, (did the shooter fire at them, or were they caught in the crossfire?) but this could have been remarkably similar even with guns banned. The man, say, stabs his boss, charges the police. Police fire, and probably pretty frantically because you don't have a lot of time to stop someone who's running at you with a knife, people still get injured in the crossfire, two people are still dead. Or maybe the "shooter" actually shot at the people who were injured, and now he charges into a crowd of people with a knife drawn. That could very well end up worse than this.

From the article: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg said some of the victims may have been hit by police bullets as they confronted the gunman."

Possibly the shooter's gun hit some people as he was trying to get away from police, as well.

EDIT: Might as well link to the article if we're talking about this.

Edited August 24, 2012 by 1st Mate Bob

[Life]

I guarantee you that there are cases like that (to Raven) where a guy comes in to work and then shanks his boss with a bread knife. We gonna outlaw kitchen utensils too?

Let's see if anyone can make the connection rather than pretending that I wrote something for the sake of writing it.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Dat Kumtah

[Brendor]

absolutely 100% legal

blaming inanimate objects for people's bad intents and or lack of knowledge is complete idiocy

Edited August 26, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Wen Yang]

Just quoting someone:

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

[Esau of Isaac]

So, more news from the US of A has made it to British shores in the form of two deaths and several injuries involving firearms on the streets of New York.

I'm not even surprised any more.

Yes, if only we lived in glorious Scotland where no one is ever mentally unbalanced and murders people, because people have no access to guns.

[Brendor]

Yes, if only we lived in glorious Scotland where no one is ever mentally unbalanced and murders people, because people have no access to guns.

Because murder's not possible without a firearm right?

[Phoenix Wright]

We do not blame the objects, as you can surely tell not a single weapon in human history has served jail-time.

We ban weapons because they make people more dangerous. I'd like to see automatic weaponry banned for similar reasons nuclear arms are banned from citizens (and attempted bans on entire nation's governments!)

[Brendor]

you do blame the firearms. If people blamed the person responsible people wouldn't be protesting firearms. I could stab you in the neck; let's outlaw knifes. If you blamed the person you'd be more concerned with social reform

[Phoenix Wright]

you do blame the firearms. If people blamed the person responsible people wouldn't be protesting firearms. I could stab you in the neck; let's outlaw knifes. If you blamed the person you'd be more concerned with social reform

As I've just explained, we ban weapons because they make people more dangerous.

For the sake of argument, let's assume all humans have the ability to create their own nuclear bombs (or any bombs, really). Do you support the notion that they have a right to create and use the bombs in 'self-defense'?

[Brendor]

what you fail to understand is that a weapon is only a weapon if someone makes it one and that everything has the potential to be a weapon. You can't just outlaw things because it's a "weapon". That's only a temporary solution to the real problem and it negatively affects the law-abiding people who use the "weapon" properly and without malice (a vast majority) Like I said you need social reforms to actually fix the problem. The problem is people; not "weapons".

[Phoenix Wright]

what you fail to understand is that a weapon is only a weapon if someone makes it one and that everything has the potential to be a weapon. You can't just outlaw things because it's a "weapon". That's only a temporary solution to the real problem and it negatively affects the law-abiding people who use the "weapon" properly and without malice (a vast majority) Like I said you need social reforms to actually fix the problem. The problem is people; not "weapons".

I would rather you answer my question, please.

[Rewjeo]

There's a *slight* difference between a nuke and a gun being used. With a gun, you may very well only have to shoot someone in the arm to get them to leave you alone, and at worst you have to kill one person who is threatening your life and could very well kill other people. With a nuke, your options are basically annihilate your entire area or to not use the nuke.

Anyways, though, I would say that I'm more concerned with social reform. People shouldn't have to be incapable of killing people to not kill people. They should be decent enough to generally not kill people. Like getting rid of guns, though, it's not the most feasible thing to do...

[Brendor]

There's a *slight* difference between a nuke and a gun being used. With a gun, you may very well only have to shoot someone in the arm to get them to leave you alone, and at worst you have to kill one person who is threatening your life and could very well kill other people. With a nuke, your options are basically annihilate your entire area or to not use the nuke.

Anyways, though, I would say that I'm more concerned with social reform. People shouldn't have to be incapable of killing people to not kill people. They should be decent enough to generally not kill people. Like getting rid of guns, though, it's not the most feasible thing to do...

Thank the lord up above, someone with sense.

Obviously you wouldn't use a nuke to defend your home, a 12gauge shotgun would suffice Mr. Wright.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Phoenix Wright]

Thank the lord up above, someone with sense.

So you support banning them due to the dangerousness of the weapon? An obvious answer.

Tell me, what would an automatic gun do that a handgun can't?

[Brendor]

At no point did I say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Simply, you don't need to pull the trigger of an automatic firearm for each shot, whereas as most handguns are semiautomatic

[Phoenix Wright]

At no point did I say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Simply, you don't need to pull the trigger of an automatic firearm for each shot, whereas as most handguns are semiautomatic

I suppose no one likes to take arguments to their extremities anymore. Make it a small bomb--now, please answer my question.

I didn't mean it like that. What I'm trying to convey is that assault rifles are built only to murder, whereas handguns can be actual tools, as well as being able to murder. I support the right to use handguns, but to rifles--they're simply too dangerous and serve no other purpose than to kill. They do not belong in society.

[Brendor]

you do realise fully automatic weapons are outlawed right?

rifles are sports equpiment as far as civilians go. Rifle Shooting and Shotgun shooting are legitimate sports recognised by the Olympics. Sports, I might add, that have the lowest injury rates compared to other sports like football or baseball

Edited August 26, 2012 by Brendor the Brave

[Phoenix Wright]

you do realise fully automatic weapons are outlawed right?

rifles are sports equpiment as far as civilians go. Rifle Shooting and Shotgun shooting are legitimate sports recognised by the Olympics. Sports, I might add, that have the lowest injury rates compared to other sports like football or baseball

New AWB?

[Esau of Isaac]

We ban weapons because they make people more dangerous.

Everything with given mass makes someone more dangerous in terms of pure ability to cause harm.

When do we stop banning things from people, and start admitting that it's crazy people that are wrong and not guns?

What I'm trying to convey is that assault rifles are built only to murder, whereas handguns can be actual tools, as well as being able to murder.

You're going to have a tough time conveying that assault rifles are built only to murder but pistols aren't.

Really think about what you're typing here, because it's loaded with pointless appeal to emotion. Do you think gun industry associates think their assault rifles are made strictly for murder?

[Brendor]

Everything with given mass makes someone more dangerous in terms of pure ability to cause harm.

When do we stop banning things from people, and start admitting that it's crazy people that are wrong and not guns?

You're going to have a tough time conveying that assault rifles are built only to murder but pistols aren't.

Really think about what you're typing here, because it's loaded with pointless appeal to emotion. Do you think gun industry associates think their assault rifles are made strictly for murder?

Now we're getting somewhere.

[1st Mate Bob]

what you fail to understand is that a weapon is only a weapon if someone makes it one and that everything has the potential to be a weapon. You can't just outlaw things because it's a "weapon". That's only a temporary solution to the real problem and it negatively affects the law-abiding people who use the "weapon" properly and without malice (a vast majority) Like I said you need social reforms to actually fix the problem. The problem is people; not "weapons".

While true, there's a small difference. For example, a fork can be used as a weapon, but a gun is a weapon. It has no other use, whereas a fork's primary function is a tool for cooking and eating. A gun's primary function is to shoot things, living or nonliving.

Outlawing guns and reforming gun laws are two completely different things. I'm for the latter, but my solutions include not allowing normal citizens to purchase assault rifles. (I mean really? You're just ASKING for trouble with a name like that.)

[Rehab]

I feel like the thread's been in vaguely this area before.

you do realise fully automatic weapons are outlawed right?rifles are sports equpiment as far as civilians go. Rifle Shooting and Shotgun shooting are legitimate sports recognised by the Olympics. Sports, I might add, that have the lowest injury rates compared to other sports like football or baseball

I thought the federal ban expired, in the U.S. at least, and hasn't been renewed. The Joker shooter whatsisface acquired an assault rifle legally, right?

Everything with given mass makes someone more dangerous in terms of pure ability to cause harm.When do we stop banning things from people, and start admitting that it's crazy people that are wrong and not guns?You're going to have a tough time conveying that assault rifles are built only to murder but pistols aren't. Really think about what you're typing here, because it's loaded with pointless appeal to emotion. Do you think gun industry associates think their assault rifles are made strictly for murder?

Problem: An average knife is generally not made to kill or injure a lot of people really fast. You're going to have a tough time telling me an assault rifle and other automatic weapons aren't. The average pistol is IMO a grey area, because it has the potential to kill a lot of people quickly with a skilled or lucky user, but I would assume given its smaller magazine size that it's more commonly used to completely stop (so to speak) or injure a few people, rather than a dozen, in a single clip. A pistol with a magazine holding 33 rounds obviously circumvents that, and is IMO worthy of attention/scrutiny.

I'll be honest, guns do kind of just plain scare me in real life. I don't really know the figures yadda yadda, so I'm not going to try to force everyone around me to conform to my vision of a legal-gun-free world etc, since I don't actually know whether it'd be an effective improvement. But I do think a distinction can be drawn between weapons that are made for combat, hunting, self-defense and ludicrous wanton destruction (see bombs etc). I don't really see why the average civilian would need the first or the fourth unless some unusually bad shit was about to go down, which I'd prefer be dealt with in some other way.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Rehab

[1st Mate Bob]

I thought the federal ban expired, in the U.S. at least, and hasn't been renewed. The Joker shooter whatsisface acquired an assault rifle legally, right?

He used a Smith & Wesson M&P15, which is basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16. It's semi-auto, but an assault rifle nonetheless.

They sell them at Big5 sporting goods.

Edited August 26, 2012 by 1st Mate Bob