Originally Posted by Arglax
So, if all guns are equally good at killing people (I feel sick writing this sentence), why would militaries spend billions upon billions on researching, developing and manufacturing more advanced guns every year? Explain to me why armed forces don’t all carry a 9mm pistol. By your logic, every gun is equal, and a higher calibre or magazine size is only ‘aesthetic’.
It doesn't matter very much how much potential the gun has, the ability to take a life is enough for the people around you to be at risk. More bling on it only makes a higher potential amount of kills.
I believe we should take every possible action to ensure the safety of the locals. That means that the police has weapons and the locals don't.
As Arglax mentioned, Americans have this strange view on how it's your "right" to "defend yourself". A gun is meant to kill and nothing else. You don't have the right to threaten the people around you or put them at risk.
Self defense arguments are stupid, You have the greatest security in the wide world and you still feel the need to walk around with assault rifles?
A gun is meant to kill and nothing else. Let the police take care of the threats for you. Every other country on earth manages security fine without people walking around with guns, there is no need for people to wave with shiny assault rifles or anything of the kind.
Also, let's get off "school shootings" and "family protection" because that is already discussed in another thread.
Brendan (he who passeth judgement on the frequent changing of signatures): I don't do hentai anymore
Originally Posted by Lazors
It doesn't matter very much how much potential the gun has, the ability to take a life is enough for the people around you to be at risk. More bling on it only makes a higher potential amount of kills.
I believe we should take every possible action to ensure the safety of the locals. That means that the police has weapons and the locals don't.
I think that's a logical fallacy unless you are willing to apply that logic to everything;
"If X has potential to kill someone X should be banned"
Are you willing to apply that logic to baseball bats, rocks, knives, cars, crowbars, martial arts, etc?
Or is this a half-baked anti-gun argument rather than something you actually believe in?
Guns certainly aren't the only way to kill people, if someone wants you dead they have many options.
I don't see a reason why anyone would want to carry a gun in public (let alone a rifle), but then again I also don't see any reason why someone would buy a $1000 quad core smartphone or use private transport. But I'm not about to advocate outlawing them.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I think that's a logical fallacy unless you are willing to apply that logic to everything;
"If X has potential to kill someone X should be banned"
Are you willing to apply that logic to baseball bats, rocks, knives, cars, crowbars, martial arts, etc?
Or is this a half-baked anti-gun argument rather than something you actually believe in?
I do apply that logic to everything, but it depends on how much of a danger there is. It's a different kind of threat to be able to bash someone down with a baseball bat than to remove a life with one click.
And of course it also depends on the use of the item. A gun isn't used for anything but killing (for target practice, use a soft air gun or similar), so there's no reason to flash it in public. You might bring a rifle to hunt, but you wouldn't flash it around in public because most countries don't allow that.
I know I said that as long as there is a potential risk for locals we should take measures, but that was when comparing handguns to assault rifles. Of course, there is a problem with sharp weapons and the use for it.
Brendan (he who passeth judgement on the frequent changing of signatures): I don't do hentai anymore
Originally Posted by Lazors
I do apply that logic to everything, but it depends on how much of a danger there is. It's a different kind of threat to be able to bash someone down with a baseball bat than to remove a life with one click.
And of course it also depends on the use of the item. A gun isn't used for anything but killing (for target practice, use a soft air gun or similar), so there's no reason to flash it in public. You might bring a rifle to hunt, but you wouldn't flash it around in public because most countries don't allow that.
I know I said that as long as there is a potential risk for locals we should take measures, but that was when comparing handguns to assault rifles. Of course, there is a problem with sharp weapons and the use for it.
There's 5 times as many deaths from automobiles than from firearms in the US every year. If you take injuries in to account, cars are more than an order of magnitude more dangerous.
Guns have legitimate legal uses, and so do cars. You will be surprised to hear this, but there's more uses to guns than killing people. More than 150 million people in the US own guns, and yet there are only around 10000 homicides every year. How can this be? If guns are such efficient killers, how come 149990000 are not used to deadly effect every year?
Am I expected to believe that the gun - the most feared and efficient killer available on the consumer market - has only a 0.06% (or 1 in 15000) fatality rate?
If airsoft guns had the same dynamics as real steel guns, then they would be just as deadly. Last I checked most airsoft guns operate under 500fps with .1-.2g pellets yielding less than a joule of energy, where as a rifle operates in the thousands of fps and with bullets weighing more than 10x as much, yielding more than 100x the energy. It's pretty ridiculous to say that an airsoft gun and a rifle are interchangeable! The UK has ruled that an airsoft gun firing pellets less than .2g at less than 500fps will not cause any lasting damage if a pellet was to strike an unprotected eye. Are you willing to have someone fire a bullet at your eye?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
