Shooting in California

@zahlanzi said
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE SO FUNNY AND SMART DEAD PEOPLE JOKES PROVE HOW INTELLIGENT YOU ARE WE HAVE NEVER EVER HEARD OF THIS JOKE YOU ARE SO ORIGINAL

Well now... no need to shout.

@karoly-aczel said
yeah, it's being discussed in this thread.

Perhaps you should rethink your ideas of what 'defending yourself ' entails ....

many things. one of which, at some point, might involve a gun. if you don't like it, don't get a gun. lobby hard for tough gun laws and i would join you.

outright ban? no.

"Perhaps you should rethink your ideas of what 'defending yourself ' entails ...."
just because you said so and no other reason? perhaps not.

@zahlanzi said
many things. one of which, at some point, might involve a gun. if you don't like it, don't get a gun. lobby hard for tough gun laws and i would join you.

outright ban? no.

"Perhaps you should rethink your ideas of what 'defending yourself ' entails ...."
just because you said so and no other reason? perhaps not.

not like I think it would actually happen.... but it's my immediate sentiment. Confiscate and destroy guns.
We all know it's not going to happen, there are underlying issues.

@karoly-aczel said
Well now... no need to shout.

that's, like, your opinion, man.

i responded to a dumb and insensitive comment with just the right amount of caps.


it's funny though that you felt the need to comment on my post and not his "hahaha, people died, yay". kinda says something about you and your priorities. what do you think it says?

@karoly-aczel said
not like I think it would actually happen.... but it's my immediate sentiment. Confiscate and destroy guns.
We all know it's not going to happen, there are underlying issues.

i see a lot of "immediate sentiment" and not a lot of rational why

so other than feelings, do you have something to base this action on? did you think what would happen? did you think that some might have legitimate reasons to carry a gun? like maybe the woman under threat of a stalker that proved he doesn't care for the restraining order she has against him? the abused wife who is in the process of divorce and her future ex just doesn't get it's over? the retired cop who might have made one or more enemies?

or just someone wanting to shoot some bottles on his property because he finds guns fun and you don't get to tell him how he should and shouldn't have his fun as long as he doesn't hurt anyone?


what other things you have immediate sentiments on to ban? tobacco? alcohol? naughty movies?

@zahlanzi said
so your argument is that you should only ban guns if their sole purpose is to kill

No. Guns are designed to kill, unlike any other consumer market. Cars are not designed to kill. No other consumer product is specifically designed to kill. That puts guns in completely different class, and makes it stupid to compare guns to cars.

Also, why do you think you're fine with people killed by cars if you're (i assume) so eager to ban guns?

Car accidents are not comparable to murder. Both are tragedies but homicides are deliberate acts of evil.

Dead people are tragic, if you want to ban something that is causing deaths, why not ban other things as well? Would it be because you are using those cars and don't want them taken away from you?

If cars start to legitimately become a tool of murder where scores of people dying, I'd be all for restricting the use of cars.

also, so what they are intended to kill? they're tools like any other.

Wrong. No other "tool" available to the public is designed to kill, and no other "tool" makes killing so easy and as so fast. That's why guns are used in homicides more than all other weapons COMBINED:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

@zahlanzi said
that's, like, your opinion, man.

i responded to a dumb and insensitive comment with just the right amount of caps.


it's funny though that you felt the need to comment on my post and not his "hahaha, people died, yay". kinda says something about you and your priorities. what do you think it says?

yeah my need and priorities...

otherwise,sure thing. we all have opinions.

@zahlanzi said
i see a lot of "immediate sentiment" and not a lot of rational why

so other than feelings, do you have something to base this action on? did you think what would happen? did you think that some might have legitimate reasons to carry a gun? like maybe the woman under threat of a stalker that proved he doesn't care for the restraining order she has against him? the abused ...[text shortened]...


what other things you have immediate sentiments on to ban? tobacco? alcohol? naughty movies?

lol...

@zahlanzi said
"There are 'bad neighbourhoods' in every country, yet in most countries, people don't have guns, they manage just fine without them"
There is no country that is moderately free where you couldn't get a gun. People in UK, Australia, Canada can absolutely get guns. They choose not to because their neighborhoods aren't that bat and they don't measure their diks by the size of ...[text shortened]... use it the way gun nuts use it but instead for the purpose of proving how guns should be regulated.

"Yes, the car example is idiotic, confusing that you then went on to use it???"
perhaps you need more time to read it again and see how i didn't use it the way gun nuts use it but instead for the purpose of proving how guns should be regulated.

I followed your advice and gave myself some time to read it...then I read it again, I scratched my head, then gave myself a couple more days to think about it........But, nope, its still a crappy use of a crap analogy. You cannot compare the regulation of an item designed to kill and an item designed to transport people.

@vivify said
No. Guns are designed to kill, unlike any other consumer market. Cars are not designed to kill. No other consumer product is specifically designed to kill. That puts guns in completely different class, and makes it stupid to compare guns to cars.

Also, why do you think you're fine with people killed by cars if you're (i assume) so eager to ban guns?

...[text shortened]... apons COMBINED:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

"Car accidents are not comparable to murder. Both are tragedies but homicides are deliberate acts of evil."
suicides. accidents. malfunctions. you forgot those, huh

"If cars start to legitimately become a tool of murder where scores of people dying, I'd be all for restricting the use of cars. "
so i ask again, cars killing people are ok because some people also use them for other things? is that all?

"I'd be all for restricting the use of cars. "
we are already restricting the use of cars

"No other "tool" available to the public is designed to kill, and no other "tool" makes killing so easy and as so fast. "
because you don't need cars for self defense and they are inadequate for that purpose. you need a tool for killing, and for that reason a gun does its job. it's a tool. a dangerous tool i am all for regulating and making sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands. a tool i might not ever need but if i do, i want the right to get it.

if someone attacked my girlfriend , i am already intent on using every means necessary to stop the attacker and i wouldn't care in the slightest if he ends up unconscious or dead. not having a gun makes the attacker more likely to succeed because i am very far from "kung-fu master" status and i can barely lift a hamburger.

"That's why guns are used in homicides more than all other weapons COMBINED:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/"
that is because the US has crap gun control laws. not because they failed to ban each and every gun ever. Is that what you are saying? that if you ban every gun there will be no more murders? Because i don't think you are saying guns won't stop any murder or rape or home invasion and they are only ever used to murder people. I hope you're not saying that.

@karoly-aczel said
lol...

well put. i recognize myself defeated by your superior debating skills.

@stellspalfie said
"Yes, the car example is idiotic, confusing that you then went on to use it???"
perhaps you need more time to read it again and see how i didn't use it the way gun nuts use it but instead for the purpose of proving how guns should be regulated.

I followed your advice and gave myself some time to read it...then I read it again, I scratched my head, then gave myself a ...[text shortened]... cannot compare the regulation of an item designed to kill and an item designed to transport people.

"You cannot compare the regulation of an item designed to kill and an item designed to transport people."
I am not, in case you didn't understood after you read it again and thought about it for several days and even scratched your head.
I was arguing that if an item designed to transport people needs regulation, an item designed to kill people absolutely needs regulation.

I wasn't discussing the complete ban of guns because it is childish and stupid and you have not proved it would solve anything.

You simply decided that guns should be banned, offered no argument to prove it would solve anything, ignored to very legitimate cases in which a gun is useful and are now ignoring any arguments on regulating guns.


Btw, did alcohol prohibition solve anything it was meant to solve? Did it make things worse? Feel free this example as well and say you can't compare items meant to make you shtfaced with items meant to kill you. It worked so well before now so no need to actually take a moment to think about it. And even scratch your head on it.

@zahlanzi said
"You cannot compare the regulation of an item designed to kill and an item designed to transport people."
I am not, in case you didn't understood after you read it again and thought about it for several days and even scratched your head.
.

I wasn't discussing the complete ban of guns because it is childish and stupid and you have not proved it would solve anything. ...[text shortened]... before now so no need to actually take a moment to think about it. And even scratch your head on it.

"I was arguing that if an item designed to transport people needs regulation, an item designed to kill people absolutely needs regulation"

Firstly, you didn't need to argue this point. As I stated guns should be banned its not a long stretch to assume that I would support regulations of guns while they are not banned.

"I wasn't discussing the complete ban of guns because it is childish and stupid and you have not proved it would solve anything."

Apart from all the countries that have banned guns....are they childish and stupid?

"You simply decided that guns should be banned, offered no argument to prove it "

That's true, but who did I reply to? What did you call them - a troll? Why would a write a long thought out response detailing all the complexities of gun control and the difficulties of removing guns from society to f@#$ing Whodey?!?!

Lets extrapolate your crappy prohibition analogy - should we not ban anything because it failed with alcohol....nope that would be stupid.

@zahlanzi said
you don't need cars for self defense and they are inadequate for that purpose. you need a tool for killing, and for that reason a gun does its job.

Bingo. That's one of the many reasons comparing guns to cars is stupid.

if someone attacked my girlfriend , i am already intent on using every means necessary to stop the attacker and i wouldn't care in the slightest if he ends up unconscious or dead. not having a gun makes the attacker more likely to succeed because i am very far from "kung-fu master" status and i can barely lift a hamburger.

If your attacker also has a gun, you're most likely dead anyway. Since you admit to being physically weak, chances are you're no gunslinger either. It's easier to shoot an unsuspecting target than it is to defend yourself against an armed attacker. More disadvantages exist with guns in the world than advantages.

@stellspalfie said
"I was arguing that if an item designed to transport people needs regulation, an item designed to kill people absolutely needs regulation"

Firstly, you didn't need to argue this point. As I stated guns should be banned its not a long stretch to assume that I would support regulations of guns while they are not banned.

"I wasn't discussing the complete ban of guns ...[text shortened]... on analogy - should we not ban anything because it failed with alcohol....nope that would be stupid.

"Firstly, you didn't need to argue this point. As I stated guns should be banned its not a long stretch to assume that I would support regulations of guns while they are not banned. "
considering you said repeatedly you support banning guns under any circumstances it is in fact a stretch to assume you don't care for regulation.


"Apart from all the countries that have banned guns....are they childish and
stupid?"
such as ? which country banned all guns?

"Lets extrapolate your crappy prohibition analogy - should we not ban anything because it failed with alcohol....nope that would be stupid."
Yes, absolutely anything for which you can make a case that it can be used responsibly shouldn't be banned. It failed with alcohol, it fails now with drugs (cocaine, lsd or marijuana, doesn't matter), it will fail with everything.