Bans...for the greater good.

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I frequently use my guns and I don't kill people.
So they must have other uses or I am in a different dimension.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 





Well a gun can only kill and injure. The gun wasn't invented/designed to maim and slightly injure people, it was made to kill and it has only limited ability (along with maiming). A gun cannot be used in any other way than to kill and injure. A car for example is a mode of transport. Accidents happen and of course people end up in road traffic accidents, that is life A knife is primarily used in the kitchen.... other knives include hunting knives and camping/fishing knives and they are used to cut rope/fishing line and carve and are multi-functional. A gun is just a tool of destruction. That is its only purpose. Obviously I meant to say its purpose is to kill OR maim, not just kill.... but the point remains, it is not used for any other reason.


I'm sure what you meant to say is that the only use YOU can think of for a gun is...

Personally I'm a little more open minded and can see other uses, one's that don't end up with some person or animal dead or maimed.

Like for example to PROTECT people, most people don't want to die, and fear imminent risk of death, this includes criminals, the criminal who breaks into a home intending theft of property or bodily harm of the residents, might consider flight when staring down the barrel of a shotgun or "assault weapon". If the gun owner lets the criminal flee for the authorities to apprehend, that incident ends with no harm to anyone.

Another example I can think of is discharging the weapon harmlessly to scare off scavengers and some predatory animals in defense of your property (though I would suggest abiding by all the laws governing the discharging of a firearm in the area where you live, lol).

Another example I can think of is as a deterrent to violence, this goes back to people not wanting to die and thus reconsidering violence against someone who has a gun and can kill them with it, and a deterrent to an oppressive government, causing them to consider carefully how far they can push the citizenry, how much liberty can they take away before they have pushed to far.

I may be alone in the belief, but I carry the belief anyhow, that this deterrent has worked to significantly slow the encroachment of government on our liberties. To be honest it seems to be working a lot less now though, I'm hoping that we can convince our government with the strength of our conviction to keep them that we can show them our determination without having to use them, which is a day I personally don't want to see.

Now I don't know if this part applies to you, I've been reading a lot of posts and counterarguments sort of blend together. So if this behavior doesn't describe you, then I don't intend it towards you. But I've many times seen the argument or stance that because I want the citizens to keep their guns, I'm a "gungho rambo wanna blow somebody away type" and that everybody that is pro-2nd amendment is also. First of all, I don't personally own a gun, don't intend to in the foreseeable future either. But it would seem to me with all the legally privately owned firearms in the US, if every one of them was a trigger happy as you make them out to be, firearm violence would have been astronomical, I say would have been because with such overwhelming amounts of gun violence all the guns would have been taken long ago.

I encourage you to prove to me that we will be statistically significantly safer if we get rid of guns. As I'm a huge believer in the idea of an armed citizenry being a deterrent to tyranny it'll have to be significantly safer, proof we'll all be marginally safer won't cut it.

And just to be clear, I am willing to support a limit on the clip capacity of weapons. I have no problem with all legally owned guns being registered, though I fear what might be done with such a list by nefarious people, I also feel that gun owners should be responsible for their weapons, if your weapon was used in the commission of a crime, you should have to answer for yourself and face possible criminal negligence or in extreme cases accessory charges. I'm open to avenues that increase safety without sacrifice of liberty.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Taliesien333 because: fixed a couple mistakes



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Actually, if you want to apply he automobile argument, then you would need a license, registration, insurance and numerous laws controlling the use of guns. Is that what you want? If you're going to pull other, unrelated things into it, then you have to take everything that goes with it.

... you'll have to wear you seatbelt when you use you gun, if you're caught with your gun while drinking, you lose your license. If you don't pay your shooting tickets, it'll be impounded... sure, make it the same as cars, see how far that goes


No, you miss the point. I am not advocating that we regulate guns like we regulate cars. I am suggesting that cars and all other motorized vehicles kill thousands of people each year and should be banned. My point is that using the premise that "if it saves just one life..." could apply to anything and everything. We need to take a serious look at society and try to eliminate death by banning EVERYTHING that causes it.


That's why cars are regulated and insurance is required. It may not have been your goal, but it's the can of worms you opened. Your argument of "if it saves just one life" has been used and has resulted in regulations for automobiles. Regulations that have saved many lives. Since you equated the two, that opens up a very supportive argument for regulations on guns, exactly what you were wanting to NOT happen.

The opposing side could also argue that since automobiles are dangerous, they are regulated and the same should be done with guns resulting in bans on guns that don't meet certain safety regulations. Your attempt at using a premise based on cars actually backfired and makes your argument much, much weaker as opposed to stronger.

If you wanted to liken guns to something else, you would have to choose something that didn't come with rules and regulations. Cars don't fit that bill.

If we wish to defend something such as gun rights, we have to be very careful with the parallels we draw, we could easily and quickly paint ourselves into a corner just as you did here.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Actually, I likened cars to guns and used the same argument being made towards guns on cars. Not the other way around.

Thank you, come again!



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Actually, I likened cars to guns and used the same argument being made towards guns on cars. Not the other way around.

Thank you, come again!


And you failed since cars are already much more regulated than guns are. That's the point.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by MrBigDave
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


Actually, I likened cars to guns and used the same argument being made towards guns on cars. Not the other way around.

Thank you, come again!


And you failed since cars are already much more regulated than guns are. That's the point.



Yet they still cause mass death! That's the point.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Yet they still cause mass death! That's the point.



And would cause many, many more without the regulations. Your argument supports making more and more regulations for guns, which is what you are saying you are against.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Yet they still cause mass death! That's the point.



And would cause many, many more without the regulations. Your argument supports making more and more regulations for guns, which is what you are saying you are against.


Are you wearing your "I hate guns" glasses or what? There is no second amendment for cars. Cars are not a right protected by the constitution and should be BANNED.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Yet they still cause mass death! That's the point.



And would cause many, many more without the regulations. Your argument supports making more and more regulations for guns, which is what you are saying you are against.


Are you wearing your "I hate guns" glasses or what? There is no second amendment for cars. Cars are not a right protected by the constitution and should be BANNED.


Nope, I love my guns. I also love my car. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I pursue it in my car.
Fail again.


If you want to compare guns to automobiles, you have to take in consideration the restrictions that are put on automobiles. Simple as that.

We can't afford to try to make cute or funny comparisons for something so important. If we do, we are painting ourselves into a corner, just as you did. Then, while in the corner, there are attacks and we lose the argument. If you want to retain your gun rights, you need to focus on guns, not compare them to something else without considering the implications.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Taliesien333
 


You're wasting your time, we're all "gun retards", remember?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MrBigDave
 
the internal combustion motor should have be banned at its begining because of its pollution of our air. the internal combustion motor pollution harms the health of every human.
also, i am in favor of motor governors that limit the power a motor can create in order to keep vehicles at less
dangerous speeds.
the internal combustion powered vehicle of any size was a bad choice for a growing America's transportation needs.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
You people that call for banning cars are sick! Cars don't kill people. TIRES do! When's the last time you saw a no-wheeled vehicle kill anyone?

Ban assault tires!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deadlychicken
Ban life, it's the leading cause of death.


Well, I think the LEADING cause of death is old age. We definitely have to ban that.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Apparently, five-gallon buckets are hunting down kids and drowning them. We definitely need to ban buckets.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Exactly, this thread shows just how one sided the anti gun commie agenda works.
Ban scissors, everyone know's running with scissors kills.

Ban Hospitals, more people die in hospital's than anywhere else.

Ban Trains, speaks for itself there.

Lets not forget to ban War, Duh!

Ban drone strike, unless the bad guy is standing in a field all alone LOL......
Hundreds of children killed in drone strikes but i do not hear the anti gunners saying one word about that.

Yawn.....



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrBigDave
 


We absolutely MUST ban bathing! there are over 300 deaths every year that are a direct result of drowning in the bath or falling in the shower. That is the equivalent of 15 Sandy Hook massacres EVERY YEAR!

300 people per year are not killed by assault weapons, yet they are to be banned. Bathing is FAR more dangerous and insidious - BAN THESE ASSAULT BATHROOMS NOW!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Guns were made for one thing and one thing only..end life..be it animal or human. You gun people are such tards...your idiotic arguments are don't even make sense.



Not mine. All of the guns I've ever owned were made for the sole purpose of causing water-filled milk jugs to explode. I'm easily amused, and it's really sort of therapeutic.

You would take something like that and employ it to kill PEOPLE? what sort of kerazeesicko are you?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Still les than the number of people killed by guns in america every year!

Ban logic, ban all controls on dangerous substances.

Ban Worker safety it impends profits.

Ban books near schools. The fire from burning them scares kids.
Ban common sense - Support the Trolls



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Taliesien333
 


Every single use for a gun you comment upon USED the fact the gun was meant to kill. " They protect people" because you can use them to kill. Use can use them to kill vermin. you can use them to scare scavenger off dead vermin.

You could have at least pointed out the joys of target shooting!

Name one thing you can build with a gun?
To be specific what can you build with a machine gun or a twelve shot, 12 gauge, shot gun?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrBigDave
 


Almost every member of society drives and automobiles kill 2/3rds less than guns.

And the general public is not allowed tanks or armoured personel carriers!





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join