Let's cut through the BS. Do GUNS kill people, OR...

[FlyingClayDisk]

So let's cut through all the bullshit.  Do GUNS kill people, OR do the (twisted) PEOPLE who use guns kill people unlawfully?

I'm so sick of this debate.  It's not even a "debate" really, it's more of a liberal echo chamber on the subject.

Look, I've been a firearms instructor for over 30 years, and I can prove to any interested person that a firearm canNOT kill another human being on its own.  I can prove it!  Throw it on the floor, bounce it off a wall, drop it out of a vehicle...it will NOT fire on its own.  It will NOT FIRE!  The only way to make a modern firearm fire is by pulling the trigger, and a person has to do this...intentionally, consciously.  No exceptions.

Oh sure, you can come up with some cocked up thing about something catching the trigger, but please do point me to a single, even just ONE single, fatality or serious injury where this ever happened!  It didn't.  Repeat...IT...DID...NOT...HAPPEN!  Yes, drunk people and people on drugs kill people with firearms, BUT so do these same people with cars, trucks, hammers, knives, bats and even with their hands.  Okay, should we outlaw all those things too (like the UK seemingly tries to do)???  It doesn't work, folks.  The person you have to stop, is the person with "intent".  A firearm has no, ZERO, "intent".  A firearm is just a tool, like a hammer, or a knife, or a car.  Firearms don't think for themselves.

So, c'mon anti-2A people...let's get into it.  You have nothing to defend your "public safety" position other than your notion than...when all guns are illegal, then you can rule over you "slaves" like you've wanted to since Lincoln made slavery illegal.  It's about "control" for you.

So, let's get it on!  Bring it!  Explain your position.

Oh, and NO, Australia is not a good example, despite everyone looking to it for their last grasp.  I love Australia, and one of the things I love about it is Australian independence.  The gun ban in Australia had little bearing on gun ownership except in the big cities.  In the rural areas, far away from cities, Australians just laughed.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Done.  Break into a rural home in central Australia and find out...'Fuck around, and find out'...as the saying goes.  Good!  Don't ya' think?

This whole "gun" thing isn't about firearms, it's about controlling YOU.  It's about controlling every single thing you do...where you go, what you have, why you have it, and what you're allowed to do. 

How can some of you people not see this?  It's about "Control". 

I don't care if a person doesn't wish to own a firearm.  There's a lot of reasons why this might be a credible reason.  That's okay.

BUT...for those people who are qualified, competent and willing...there should be no reason, under the umbrella of the founding fathers of this once great nation, which should prevent law abiding citizens from owning as many firearms as they wish, including fully automatic weapons (only thing I take issue with Reagan for...fuck the Firearms Act of '86).

I rest.

P.S.  Now, I know this is not a topic welcome here on DI.  Hey, I get it.  Okay, but I posted it...and I really don't give a flying...(connection lost)

Take care all!!

[Maxmars]

Your preaching to the choir, in my case.

Objects don't "do" anything.  They have to be used... don't like "how?"... blame the user.

The activist diatribe is more about fear and stress than control... except that fear and stress are both desirable elements to control people. 

If it weren't guns, it would be something else... 

My concern isn't bout guns... it's about violence...

Anti-gun activism attacks the object, not the problem.  Which makes it exceedingly futile.

Do you wonder if they will ever ban knives in England?

[FlyingClayDisk]

Your preaching to the choir, in my case.

Objects don't "do" anything.  They have to be used... don't like "how?"... blame the user.

The activist diatribe is more about fear and stress than control... except that fear and stress are both desirable elements to control people. 

If it weren't guns, it would be something else... 

My concern isn't bout guns... it's about violence...

Anti-gun activism attacks the object, not the problem.  Which makes it exceedingly futile.

Do you wonder if they will ever ban knives in England?

Thank you, for some realistic and objective insight!!

I sincerely do appreciate it!

[UltraBudgie]

well saying guns dont kill violence kills...
like perhaps saying booze doesnt kill alcholism kills?

or saying captitalizm doesnt kill environment externalized consequence to commons kill environment?

or internet malspeech doesnt kill, people believing and leveraging it does?
after all we're jiust having fun here

military doesn't kill, badpeple who make military necessary kills

guns dont kill people, god kills people
or perhaps only when wearing his satin fingerpuppet

maybe it was all chekovs fault
dang guy could have simply not written that play

anything to avoid personal responsibility eh?
perhap but that is maya too, and objects such as gun must exist as externalizations of innerside people
as within so without as trimaggie said

or is perhaps weaponized attack on constitution! point to weaken, as it is 'absolute', and yet why gunlaws and permits and infingments?  oh well, the founders didn't mean that... for example you say automatic weapons even but what about tanks and bioweapons, those are arms too!  or even nukes, if those were real.

it is a moist slope, banning, "reasonable" infingment for "public safety".

also, free people don't ask permission to be armed, or allow their rights to be curtailed by others mere opinion, so why we even talking about it?  hahah

maybe lets talk something less controversial, like nationalistic zionism... LOST CARRIER....

[Maxmars]

well saying guns dont kill violence kills...
like perhaps saying booze doesnt kill alcholism kills?

or saying captitalizm doesnt kill environment externalized consequence to commons kill environment?

or internet malspeech doesnt kill, people believing and leveraging it does?
after all we're jiust having fun here

military doesn't kill, badpeple who make military necessary kills

guns dont kill people, god kills people
or perhaps only when wearing his satin fingerpuppet

maybe it was all chekovs fault
dang guy could have simply not written that play

anything to avoid personal responsibility eh?
perhap but that is maya too, and objects such as gun must exist as externalizations of innerside people
as within so without as trimaggie said

or is perhaps weaponized attack on constitution! point to weaken, as it is 'absolute', and yet why gunlaws and permits and infingments?  oh well, the founders didn't mean that... for example you say automatic weapons even but what about tanks and bioweapons, those are arms too!  or even nukes, if those were real.

it is a moist slope, banning, "reasonable" infingment for "public safety".

also, free people don't ask permission to be armed, or allow their rights to be curtailed by others mere opinion, so why we even talking about it?  hahah

maybe lets talk something less controversial, like nationalistic zionism... LOST CARRIER....

[Oh my!  I'm in one of those moods... please forgive me if I seem like I'm being a "dick" about what you said.  I promise I respect you, and I am not trying to be a jerk or anything like it... but I find a lot of room to comment on your statements...]

" booze doesnt kill alcholism kills"
Booze is only "booze" because we drink it. Drinking booze does kill... sometimes.  Alcoholism is not a mandatory death sentence... (people recover every day.) People drink... sometimes too much.

" captitalizm doesnt kill environment externalized consequence to commons kill environment"
Capitalism is an economic application of "ownership"... those who use it shield or justify their activities are people... people "do" things... and claim it's "according to" capitalism... people do this.

" internet malspeech doesnt kill, people believing and leveraging it does"
"Malspeech" is "speech" - it, in and of itself, is only an idea expressed... shall we go down the road of ideas kill? "Speech" kills?  And what people believe is not in my domain to judge.

" military doesn't kill, badpeple who make military necessary kills"
The military will and does kill... when it is so commanded.  Talk of those who "order" that and we get right back down to people again.

" guns dont kill people, god kills people"
Gun can kill people, but guns never "murder" people... I don't know that God kills people - that is a matter of faith.

" anything to avoid personal responsibility eh?"

I find that quite contrary to what I was thinking...  Yet, ironically my point about responsibility is exactly the same... I think [opinion] that responsibility is always down to the actor, not the act.   It's about the person, not the "thing."  Things don't commit crimes... specifically things don't 'commit' anything at all... they are inert objects set in motion by personal will... that's were the responsibility lies, the person. Maybe the great deception and illusion of reality means there must always be a "killer" object amongst the souls journeying in life here. Hermeticists aside, the reflective nature of duality is self-evident, guns are linked with both taking and saving lives... whether or not that is a true thing, is in the eye of the beholder.

You might disagree, but I believe the Constitution "intent" had little to do with guns in the specific sense, and everything to do with codifying that citizens must always be capable of defending themselves... to have access to the means to provide that defense - and that the pursuit of that capability was not be imposed upon by externally applied rationale, so long as it was benign. Tech had nothing to do with it.  Only a time-locked fool would think that weapons weren't ever going to improve or become more formidable... The minutiae of specifics was left to those who are living in whatever time came after them.  Not to be trite, but bioweapons... tanks... these are not for personal defense (except maybe for some exceedingly paranoid or stressed out individuals.)

I don't care for the word "infringement" in these contexts... it implies victimhood.  It weakens the subject.  Maybe I just don't have the right words, but I find the whole topic of "rights" as opposed to "Constitutional rights" to be mishandled and mangled all too frequently.

People "do" things.  Sometimes really bad things... objects don't commit crimes, people do.

Taking away a murderers' gun doesn't mean he or she will no longer kill.

[jaded]

In the weapons debates I think the premise of the question is wrong.
"Do people kill people or do guns kill people?"

Firstly cause I can hear my old drill sargent spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken,
"Weapons are for shooting your gun is for fun".

A firearm of any denomination is just a tool.
Any tool can be misused. Most folk who'd ban firearms are scared of them. Hand one a circular saw or slap a welding helmet on them & hand them the torch they'd be equally as terrified.
When the question is phrased as firearms are tools for specific jobs the rest of the debate is not necessary.  

Now to be fair I've heard personally " I need my AK or whichever assault weapon for hunting".No, no you don't buckoo.
In reality a brick can kill a deer. If a hunter "needs" a automatic or semi-automatic weapon to hunt I'm a'gonna ask "how long have you suked at hunting? Folks who need a semi-automatic for personal protection while hunting is COMPLETEY different. Had any hunter said 
it was for personal protection while hunting to me EVER, I'd shake their hand.

This isn't a exercise in being pedantic.
The form of the question is meant to incite the desired response by whoever first wrote it. 
Or just inflame people so they never stop to think "what's the actual question?" Am I for people killing people with firearms? Or am I anti-personal weapons?"

BTW I'm pro-firearms. 
I'm even more pro on maybe making firearm training mandatory. You'd have to qualify on the shooting range prior to being eligable to purchase one. Yes I know that won't keep criminals from having firearms, but it will definately make sure you're a better shot than a criminal.

[Maxmars]

BTW I'm pro-firearms. 
I'm even more pro on maybe making firearm training mandatory. You'd have to qualify on the shooting range prior to being eligable to purchase one. Yes I know that won't keep criminals from having firearms, but it will definately make sure you're a better shot than a criminal.

I bet half of the grief about "firearms in the hands of civilians" would disappear if there were firearm safety classes as part of a high school education curriculum.  It would eliminate the visceral fear, at least.

[UltraBudgie]

[Oh my!  I'm in one of those moods... please forgive me if I seem like I'm being a "dick" about what you said.  I promise I respect you, and I am not trying to be a jerk or anything like it... but I find a lot of room to comment on your statements...]

I like you too.

You might disagree, but I believe the Constitution "intent" had little to do with guns in the specific sense, and everything to do with codifying that citizens must always be capable of defending themselves... to have access to the means to provide that defense - and that the pursuit of that capability was not be imposed upon by externally applied rationale, so long as it was benign.

Well, I'm not sure about the "benign" part, but in fact I don't disagree with you at all here.  2a seems to recognize that "the security of Free States" is necessary for the Constitution to be more than paper, so I guess Lincoln would argue that not being "benign" would be malignantly destructive to the Union, invalidating the Constitution, and is thus implied.

Tech had nothing to do with it.  Only a time-locked fool would think that weapons weren't ever going to improve or become more formidable... The minutiae of specifics was left to those who are living in whatever time came after them.  

A bit of a diversion; I wonder if, say, Jefferson would consider groups such as "Anonymous" to be militias, in an online State, doing battle with meme-warfare?  I bet he would!  He'd prolly be all in to that.  We know that derpa and jsocks think of such things as weapons.

Not to be trite, but bioweapons... tanks... these are not for personal defense (except maybe for some exceedingly paranoid or stressed out individuals.)

And here's a great big hair to split: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".  So is it a personal right only?  Or should militias have capabilities of nation-state level of warfare?  Remember, the USA originally didn't have a standing army...

I don't care for the word "infringement" in these contexts... it implies victimhood.  It weakens the subject.  Maybe I just don't have the right words, but I find the whole topic of "rights" as opposed to "Constitutional rights" to be mishandled and mangled all too frequently.

No, that's wrong.  It doesn't imply "victimhood", in the call the whaambulance sense.  It refers to actions of the State that conflict with the People's rights.  The Constitution does not, as is commonly thought, "grant rights", rather it explicitly acknowledges some rights, and clearly defines where the State may infringe them.  Or not.

I think we Agree and you Know this, so I will stop now as I am Capitalizing many Nouns.

[Maxmars]

I like you too.

You might disagree, but I believe the Constitution "intent" had little to do with guns in the specific sense, and everything to do with codifying that citizens must always be capable of defending themselves... to have access to the means to provide that defense - and that the pursuit of that capability was not be imposed upon by externally applied rationale, so long as it was benign.

Well, I'm not sure about the "benign" part, but in fact I don't disagree with you at all here.  2a seems to recognize that "the security of Free States" is necessary for the Constitution to be more than paper, so I guess Lincoln would argue that not being "benign" would be malignantly destructive to the Union, invalidating the Constitution, and is thus implied.

Tech had nothing to do with it.  Only a time-locked fool would think that weapons weren't ever going to improve or become more formidable... The minutiae of specifics was left to those who are living in whatever time came after them.  

A bit of a diversion; I wonder if, say, Jefferson would consider groups such as "Anonymous" to be militias, in an online State, doing battle with meme-warfare?  I bet he would!  He'd prolly be all in to that.  We know that derpa and jsocks think of such things as weapons.

Not to be trite, but bioweapons... tanks... these are not for personal defense (except maybe for some exceedingly paranoid or stressed out individuals.)

And here's a great big hair to split: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".  So is it a personal right only?  Or should militias have capabilities of nation-state level of warfare?  Remember, the USA originally didn't have a standing army...

I don't care for the word "infringement" in these contexts... it implies victimhood.  It weakens the subject.  Maybe I just don't have the right words, but I find the whole topic of "rights" as opposed to "Constitutional rights" to be mishandled and mangled all too frequently.

No, that's wrong.  It doesn't imply "victimhood", in the call the whaambulance sense.  It refers to actions of the State that conflict with the People's rights.  The Constitution does not, as is commonly thought, "grant rights", rather it explicitly acknowledges some rights, and clearly defines where the State may infringe them.  Or not.

I think we Agree and you Know this, so I will stop now as I am Capitalizing many Nouns.

Just to tidy up my last post... by the word "benign" I only meant "not belligerent to the state." 

A well-regulated militia only has what it's individual members bring to it.  How an individual might procure tanks and weapons specifically designed for combat is up to them.  I grant you, the drafters most probably didn't envision a militia with dozens of cannons and/or siege weapons.  But then the intent may have been specifically about the people being capable of defending their collective selves, and not waging war.

I'm glad you got my meaning about the 'victimhood' thing... 

Acknowledged.

[Anna]

So let's cut through all the bullshit.  Do GUNS kill people, OR do the (twisted) PEOPLE who use guns kill people unlawfully?

I'm so sick of this debate.  It's not even a "debate" really, it's more of a liberal echo chamber on the subject.

Look, I've been a firearms instructor for over 30 years, and I can prove to any interested person that a firearm canNOT kill another human being on its own.  I can prove it!  Throw it on the floor, bounce it off a wall, drop it out of a vehicle...it will NOT fire on its own.  It will NOT FIRE!  The only way to make a modern firearm fire is by pulling the trigger, and a person has to do this...intentionally, consciously.  No exceptions.

.....

Oh my God! This is what we call a killer argument!

Here's a thing. Guns facilitate killing. This is what makes them different from other kinds of weapons. It's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. You don't have to approach a target and fight with him. And if, let's say, a psycho wants to kill thirty something students in a classroom, using a knife for this or a machete would be fairly impractical. Not saying it would be impossible but a gun makes killing easier and faster.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking from experience. I didn't try various ways of exterminating puny humans. I take my life wisdom from Indiana Jones series and it led me to the conclusion that guns make killing definitely easier. And I can PROVE it!

Here's my killer argument: