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

[Kurokage]

Thank you.

Maybe we should regulate people’s shopping budget. Government control over how many calories you can consume per day.

Does obesity and it’s complication cause more deaths than gun deaths?

A bit of a straw man argument don't you think, and the thread wasn't about obesity. Thou' I could probably choke you to death on a cumberland sausage.  
https://honest-food.net/cumberland-sausage-recipe/

A firearm is a tool made to kill just like a Mcdonalds, so maybe you do have a point. 

[FlyingClayDisk]

I think you've already made your mind up within the first two sentences, and are calling the people who diasgree with you 'liberals in an echo chamber" so you're not really here to discuss it are you??

Actually, I am, and I have, if you take a look back at my reply to Byrd and others above.  What I was calling an "echo chamber" is the typical liberal argument, and I was trying to dispense with that and cut to the chase.  What I was hoping to avoid was all the usual teeth gnashing and hand wringing with all the usual uninformed rhetoric.  But not to worry.

 

I do agree with the member that said "Guns kill people like forks make you fat." though.

As do I, and that is the fundamental point of the OP.  It was an excellent analogy.  And, it's one of many credible reasons to defend such actions against the 2nd Amendment.  Deterrent is another. 
 

You have it ingrained into that it's your 'God given right' to own a firearm with no one allowed to tell you anything different, so stomp and moan at any mention of being forced to be educatated on proper ownership, care and storage by your government or have it regulated by your government or state. A 'standard' if you will for gun ownership, which should be part of any decent militia.

As an instructor, I have no issue with education on the subject.  Just basic instruction has not ever really been an issue here either.  NOR has it ever been seriously proposed, so I'm not sure where you're getting that.  However, when the subject of 'storage' comes up, then there are issues, particularly when someone wants to regulate this as locked storage preventing reasonable access for self defense.  But education I have no issue with at all.  In fact, I not only encourage it, I demand it for those around me.  Lives depend on proper education.  You will get no argument from me on this subject!

Regarding 'militias', this word is troublesome because of how it has been demonized by the left (not the right).  A "well regulated militia' is part of the Constitution as you likely know, but so many people misunderstand the intent of this statement.  Furthermore, the left in this country has demonized the word 'militia' intentionally to make an organized militia sound like a radical group of crazy insurgents.  That's not the intent, nor was it ever the intent.  But that's the problem with the left in America; they cannot be reasoned with.  It's all or nothing...even though they say differently.
 

I've personally seen this played out by an 'idiot' who's given my brother (We're British) all the 'mightier than thou' talks and the 'it's my right' bull. They're friends and have visted each other over the years. My brother and I are both martial artists with a few years under our belts using Katana amongst other things and understand the dangers of leaving around 'cutting' swords (theft, injury).
A few years back by brothers friend blew his knee out whilst cleaning his firearm, and lost his house, with his family moving to seperate family accomadations because of the costs.   Understanding the ownership of a deadly weapon should be on par or above the belief in the 2nd Amendment, and not below it or even forgot about.

I'm sorry to hear of your brother's friend.  Firearms are dangerous, deadly in fact, and should be treated with the care and competency they deserve.  Once again, proper education is critical.  You'll get no argument from me there.

[Kurokage]

Actually, I am, and I have, if you take a look back at my reply to Byrd and others above.  What I was calling an "echo chamber" is the typical liberal argument,

The problem here is as an 'outsider' looking in, I see that type of behaviour coming from both sides and a better way forward will only ever happen when ALL sides take an honest look around instead of labeling the 'enemy' which you did within the first 2 sentences....

 NOR has it ever been seriously proposed, , so I'm not sure where you're getting that...

As a member on the other site for many years. When ever this type of question comes up I've offered similar opinions as to my earlier post. Only to be chastized as "a Liberal trying to take our guns" because Im British by many posters. I've never posted that in my 20 years on that particular forum yet still got it as the first response everytime. I also suggested that if certain behavoiurs to do with mental health are flagged then maybe a system should but into action, and again, I was yelled at as a liberal. Never been a liberal.

Regarding 'militias', this word is troublesome because of how it has been demonized by the left (not the right).  A "well regulated militia' is part of the Constitution as you likely know, but so many people misunderstand the intent of this statement.

I think part of the problem is the ambiguity surrounding that word when it was inillity written and how it compares/is used today.

[Maxmars]

With some caution, I chime in to this conversation (of which I may not rightly be considered a part.)

Your opinion and words are no less valid than anyone else's here.
I would labor to pay little mind to characterizations in politi-speak, as such they hardly ever reflect the reality of a person's nationality.

I do understand that American Constitutional rights are literally 'alien' to most of the world's population.  However, the liberty to scrutinize and debate their meaning applies to anyone, including British citizens.  But I remind you, and everyone else, that the British outlook on American gun policy is mostly more common with the rest of the world, and Americans often find themselves characterized as "gun-toting lunatics", "crazy about their "so-called" rights"...

Along with that reminder I must add that this IS America these Americans are talking about.  Your society (as well as many others) don't ken to the rationale which led to the 2nd Amendment, and as long as that works for your respective countries, that's fine by me (and likely many, if not most, Americans.)

That we concern ourselves with self-sufficiency in defense of our property and persons is (or must be) alien to you as well. 
That we believe that the moment our "government" asserts we cannot do so, they are crossing a line... in this case codified in the Constitution...  namely, that such assertions can never be given by a government that has the "authority" to oppress you. 
In doing so, they will have ceased to be "of the people," opting for actively managing us like children, or cattle.

Besides, no one can say that guns "kill" unless they tacitly maintain that guns "do" things on their own. 
Most every non-violent fatality or injury is an accident...
Every violent gun crime is the work of a person.  

All I can offer is that even in your country, (which I love, by the way) that grants no acknowledgement to a "right to bear arms" as in the US, the only manifest difference it makes is that violent crimes take a different form...  removing the weapon does not seem to stop violent crime, nor does it diminish its severity in terms of human pain. 

The gun argument has no resolution, unless we can utterly lay down our guard and "trust" the government to protect us as we face harm. 
They haven't demonstrated that capacity to us in over 200 years.

[Byrd]

Lastly, and I can't stress this enough...what has changed in the recent decades?  Not guns.  People have changed.  We will have to agree to disagree on the point that the only purpose of a gun is to kill.  Guns, like nuclear weapons, are also a deterrent.  They often also prevent bad people from doing bad things without even being fired.  So, this is my rejoinder to the notion that a firearm's only purpose is to "kill".  Earlier in this thread another member posted an Indiana Jones clip.  You saw a man with a sword who surely would have "killed" Indiana Jones had he not possessed a firearm to defend himself.  In the absence of that firearm, well, it would have been a sword against a bullwhip, not much of a match.  Point being, people will find a method to kill if this is their "intent"...and this has been proven the world over.  If they don't have a firearm...they'll find another way.  Once again, the firearm is just a tool; it's the "intent" which matters.

We could do some back-and-forth on the earlier points (my comment about road rage shootings wasn't meant to indicate that they're common... but in Texas that's what crosses your mind if someone gets surly in traffic.  We do have frequent ones in Dallas.)  However, I wanted to focus on this last paragraph, because I think it cuts to the heart of the matter:  culture.

>>>We become the stories we tell ourselves<<<
>>>This is an important part of culture.<<<

You (and I) grew up in a world that's different than today.  Our heroes on tv might have worn a gun (Paladin) but they rarely shot anyone.  Dragnet's Joe Friday arrested a lot of people and never pulled a gun on anyone and almost never called in a SWAT type team.  Bad guys were never celebrated, and the anti-hero really wasn't a "thing."  In movies and in books, guns were uncommon.  There weren't many songs about shooting (about getting shot and dying tragically, yeah there's a few ("El Paso" by Marty Robbins, for instance)  Hip Kids showed their "macho" by smoking cigarettes and driving fast cars (racing.)  Songs about girls were usually about protecting them and marriage and relationships.

We were "safer" simply because there were a LOT fewer people in the world than there are today (you got more of a "small town" vibe because there were a LOT of small towns given how small the population was... the population of the US more than doubled between 1950 and 2020) 

Fast forward.

In American media, guns are everywhere.  NCIS seems to have a lot of people storming around as SWAT teams and there's shootings every week.  The trope of "lone guy with gun taking on Big Bad Corporations" (or government) is everywhere (yes, even you, "Star Wars"), and movies about nasty people/villains (like the Joker) are everywhere, presenting them in a positive or sympathetic light.  And when the Lone Aggravated Guy takes on the Government, the government fails to take him out with drones/cops/tactical strikes and instead folds like a cheap umbrella when LAG and his Big Gun show up to Deliver Justice.

(we become the stories we tell ourselves)

In music, women are "ho's" and prizes to be won, but not romanced.  Women's songs often feature anger about being locked into old traditional roles.  Songs about shooting people down are very common, as are songs about flaunting wealth and ... basically being a snobby jerk.

(we become the stories we tell ourselves) 

There are, of course, exceptions to the above and they're not EVERY single move/show
or piece of music... in fact, I'd say they were probably a minority though they're a rather loud minority.  But look at it through the lens of a kid growing up today.  Songs about getting respect are all about money and guns (not about winning science fairs.)  Songs about getting power and wealth to move out of the ghetto are all about buying drugs and getting guns and shooting and manipulating prostitutes to get social and economic power.

(we become the stories we tell ourselves.)

American culture is far more violent than cultures in other nations.  Our cities are not as safe as those in many other countries (and many countries issue travel advisories for the United States.)  

We have become the stories we are telling ourselves.

If we were to cycle back to SOME of the stories from the 1950's (please... not the ones where I have to prance around in skirt and heels and pretend like I've got an IQ of 90), we would change.  If our heroes were scientists and teachers and inventors... if we saw stories about people moving up and becoming successful by inventing new things and if science (not violence) was solving problems, over the course of a decade we'd see our country becoming safer.

We became the stories we told ourselves.  I'd like to see better.  But until we change the story from "lone guy with gun solves everything" to something like "village and laws deal with monsters and anti-heroes are NOT championed", we'll see the same cycle again.  And that's why we need laws to rein some of the Guy With Gun enthusiasts in.



(my 2 quatloo's worth.  note: I now watch British tv which is more like the tv I grew up with)

[pianopraze]

A bit of a straw man argument don't you think, and the thread wasn't about obesity. Thou' I could probably choke you to death on a cumberland sausage.  
https://honest-food.net/cumberland-sausage-recipe/

A firearm is a tool made to kill just like a Mcdonalds, so maybe you do have a point. 

We definitely need a well regulated McDonalds.

asalted burgers are dangerous.

Think of all the children you could save!

[UltraBudgie]

removing the weapon does not seem to stop violent crime

althou to be fair america has never really tried this right?  had standing army for long time now, and gundeath trauma too, and yes though you can say not causally related within framework of rational association that secularschool teaches you is only valid way to look at world, not everyone does.  karama valid too.  what happens to others, that you passively allow, happen to you, that you impotently suffer.  manymany people kids familys killed each year in world by american guns.  river of blood.  not all badguy!  even by american standards.  very few actually.  so haha karma you need domestic guns too.  so your kids can be killed by crazies in schools.  karma says you must eat the horror.  oh but claim that military violence is under control, precision, lawful.  um interesting because same gungho promilitary 2a supporters claim sooften that government is out of control, evil to people... and this has nothing to do with honorable military service and invidivual serviceperson; many quality individuals, is same argument: american guns don't kill people, american people kill people, in same way as american military don't kill people, american government-by-people kill people.  infact much american pride in miltary being cleanweapon, loyal, like well-regulated firearm.  okay.  no ones fault, just way world works, you have to get what you deserve, same as americans love animals, but in order to flesheat make mass cattle horrorfarms, concentrated cattle feeding poeration like smithfield and tyson.  then complain when their own elite reduce them to cattle with mindnumb stupid propaganda, entertainment poisontrap, economic fakemoney slavery, just like americans implicitly okay doing to other aminals they call cattle, but are ohso outrages when they get the same treatment they turn blindeye to.  again is noone to blame per se, is just simple results of hippocracy.


edit please enjoy todays rant brought to you by the letters g a f and also please cool it with sausage stuff this is family place

[Kurokage]

 also please cool it with sausage stuff this is family place

Cumberland Sausage is a wonderful circular sausage dish and I was trying to emphasise the fact that a deadly weapon can take many forms.

[Encia22]

Cumberland Sausage is a wonderful circular sausage dish and I was trying to emphasise the fact that a deadly weapon can take many forms.

Yes, precisely, here in Italy, a runaway giant Mortadella could easy mow down a dozen people... and their dogs.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

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.

...(connection lost)

Take care all!!

Long answer.

Gun control laws (and the push for them) are like banning sale of cough medicine to minors and moving it behind the counter after too many teenagers die from abusing it for its dissociative anesthetic effects.

It's Monday morning quarterback regulation to limit abuse outside intended purposes in hindsight. It's fueled by the stages of grief. All it takes is one parent sick of the permissibility of the thing they choose to blame for their loss. It's more direct than any mental health issue that led to its misuse. Limiting access is just more direct to feeling better.

All stats in the world fall on grief stricken ears.

"If only they didn't have easy access to an AR they might have not been able to get to my daughters class room and she'd still be alive." Stuff like that.

And then it's up to the crocodile tears of those that listen. And some media is all too happy to put them on to call attention to why they think their kid is dead. And what needs to change.

Heston's hands are cold and dead there. And one too many ever-popular AR powered mass shootings outweighs all else. There are triple and quadruple homicides daily from gang violence and handguns. They VASTLY outnumber much rarer incidents of an assault rifle rampages.

But those shootings seem to start at 'quadruple' and escalate. Like 13 dead, 26 injured. Or 61 dead, 837 injured in it's most extreme yet recorded case. In that case, the argument is that it couldn't have been done from the Mandalay Bay penthouse without at-military grade weaponry being available. And it sticks out for casualty count and deadly capability when used by evil.

Pro gun lobby may say: "ARs are used for small game. And even if they weren't it's my upheld constitutional right to operate a well maintained militia, which entails rivaling the weapons of any tyrannical government soldier."

Gun control advocate says: "Oh use a .22 long rifle to shoot squirrels and quit trying to arm yourself like a goddamn paramilitary soldier because you fear government tyranny at any time now."

Gun lobby retorts: "Ain't that just the plan?"

I'm not pro weapons ban, but Jim-Bob a la Deliverance doesnt need one for them varmits unless he qualifies to own it.

I think the criteria for owning the contentious assault weapon should be:

• 21 year or older
• no criminal record (Including assault and domestic violence misdemeanors within 7 years)
• psyche evaluation/no 5150s
• prerequisite training course run by certified professional.
• Registration in a dangerous weapon database.

* Like how you need to register a LEGAL RPG with the ATF as a destructive device in a process that disqualifies ALL bad seeds by the approval process alone.

Just my opinion. Don't hate me for it.