Mass shooting thread

[M3J]

Guns are the main problem because they make it easy to kill multiple people quickly. People shoot and kill people, but guns make it easier to do that. If someone went on a knifing spree, it'd be easier to stop the person than it is to stop a shooter. Trucks are probably better weapons, but you don't see as many people using trucks to commit mass murder, thankfully, like you do with guns.

[Purple Rayne]

This wouldn't be a discussion if guns being "the" problem was common sense. The gun was A problem in those particular scenarios

 

The gun was a problem? What were the other problems (of equal relevance/significance)?

 

Guns are the main problem because they make it easy to kill multiple people quickly. People shoot and kill people, but guns make it easier to do that. If someone went on a knifing spree, it'd be easier to stop the person than it is to stop a shooter. Trucks are probably better weapons, but you don't see as many people using trucks to commit mass murder, thankfully, like you do with guns.

 

Not to mention, guns were invented/designed specifically to kill things (unlike knives, vehicles, etc.). That's their one and only purpose. Knives are tools - guns are weapons. Knives can obviously be used as weapons, but so can literally anything that's sharp, or blunt, or heavy, etc. It's a moot point.

 

Guns are exclusively in the category of weaponry. They're not multipurpose. Any argument that suggests otherwise is either a ridiculous stretch, or a sloppy semantics game where someone tries to squeeze guns into the category of tool, or some other similar, more innocent-sounding category.

[maskedmaniac]

How about instead of weapons we call them shooting devices? Its brilliant! You can use shooting devices to shoot a light switch to turn it on from the comfort of your couch, shoot a fly off someones head, or shoot the TV to change the channel. Its all about how you present things to people.

[Bdon]

 

This wouldn't be a discussion if guns being "the" problem was common sense. The gun was A problem in those particular scenarios

 

The gun was a problem? What were the other problems (of equal relevance/significance)?

 

Guns are the main problem because they make it easy to kill multiple people quickly. People shoot and kill people, but guns make it easier to do that. If someone went on a knifing spree, it'd be easier to stop the person than it is to stop a shooter. Trucks are probably better weapons, but you don't see as many people using trucks to commit mass murder, thankfully, like you do with guns.

 

Not to mention, guns were invented/designed specifically to kill things (unlike knives, vehicles, etc.). That's their one and only purpose. Knives are tools - guns are weapons. Knives can obviously be used as weapons, but so can literally anything that's sharp, or blunt, or heavy, etc. It's a moot point.

 

Guns are exclusively in the category of weaponry. They're not multipurpose. Any argument that suggests otherwise is either a ridiculous stretch, or a sloppy semantics game where someone tries to squeeze guns into the category of tool, or some other similar, more innocent-sounding category.

 

And? What's your point? So it makes it a bit easier to kill things and is specifically for killing things most of the time. What's your point? You got a solution to fixing issues or you just want people to agree with the obvious?

 

Oh and by the way, guns used in competitions would be used as tools for sport, so, you're wrong. They are also tools. You saying off the bat that they aren't and it's sloppy semantics doesn't make it so. You just don't want to hear it. Kind of silly to be honest. Just like saying guns being the main problem is common sense. It's actually just nonsense.

[maskedmaniac]

Zhooting Styx? Make them easier to market to kids.

[Generations]

Tools aren't used for sport.

 

That's an amusing statement right off the bat. Sport is for entertainment/recreation. Tools are for practical applications. At best, guns used for sport are for entertainment...which is why they fall into a very shady gray area.

 

If you're calling guns a "tool" in a sport shooting application, then a soccer ball is a tool...a video game controller is a tool. That's just not the case. Guns are for killing, or guns are for entertainment. And that's a fine line that too many people cross.

[Purple Rayne]

And? What's your point? So it makes it a bit easier to kill things and is specifically for killing things most of the time. What's your point?

 

You just answered your own question. Because of what guns are, we obviously need to do something about them. What, exactly? I don't know.

 

You got a solution to fixing issues or you just want people to agree with the obvious?

 

It clearly isn't obvious, given that people frequently say stupid shit like, "Oh yeah? Well, knives are used to kill people too! Should we regulate those?!"

 

People often fail to make the distinction.

 

Oh and by the way, guns used in competitions would be used as tools for sport, so, you're wrong.

 

No. In that context, they're an instrument.

 

You saying off the bat that they aren't and it's sloppy semantics doesn't make it so.

 

Indeed, but your use of sloppy semantics - immediately prior to that sentence - certainly does. Like clockwork, baby.

[nWo_Kevin]

 

And? What's your point? So it makes it a bit easier to kill things and is specifically for killing things most of the time. What's your point?

You just answered your own question. Because of what guns are, we obviously need to do something about them. What, exactly? I don't know.

 

I wish you had an answer because I'd be curious to hear it.But in regards to your reply to WNX where you asked "What were the other problems". I'd argue that mental illness is a bigger problem than guns themselves.

 

How about the fact that despite the number of guns increasing in this country, the number of gun deaths are actually decreasing? Or the fact that 50 something % of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, and the fact that suicides continue to increase in this country. Showing that for some reason we as a society seem more and more willing to kill ourselves or each other. And until we address that problem, whatever we do about guns is going to mean very little IMO.

[M3J]

If guns are considered tools, then they're tools to help kill someone or something. We don't even need guns in our lives anyway, other than to fight wars.

 

Funny thing is, there have been different solutions, but gun maniacs prefer to ignore them and/or give up because they can't come up with a good counter and say "BuT aT lEaSt We GoT 2nD aMeNdMeNt!!1"

 

[Bdon]

 

And? What's your point? So it makes it a bit easier to kill things and is specifically for killing things most of the time. What's your point?

 

You just answered your own question. Because of what guns are, we obviously need to do something about them. What, exactly? I don't know.

 

You got a solution to fixing issues or you just want people to agree with the obvious?

 

It clearly isn't obvious, given that people frequently say stupid shit like, "Oh yeah? Well, knives are used to kill people too! Should we regulate those?!"

 

People often fail to make the distinction.

 

Oh and by the way, guns used in competitions would be used as tools for sport, so, you're wrong.

 

No. In that context, they're an instrument.

 

You saying off the bat that they aren't and it's sloppy semantics doesn't make it so.

 

Indeed, but your use of sloppy semantics - immediately prior to that sentence - certainly does. Like clockwork, baby.

 

Dude what are you even on about? lol. An instrument and a tool are one in the same. It is a synonym for tool. And pro gun people have no problem making the distinction. It's the other way around actually. It's stupid arguments that you and others are sitting here making about semantics and what not that most would have a problem with. You clearly lack a problem with knives that are used to kill thousands every year but only have an issue with guns because of the same reason? Kind of redundant. Who gives a shit what the purpose they are made for is, literally everything can be used to kill someone. Instead of focusing on a number of possible issues like poverty, mental health, lack of morals, and bad parenting, we instead focus on one style of weapon that is the tool or instrument used. And people wonder why this shit seems to get worse. Where's your statistics on how guns are the problem? You don't think there will be as much mass killings without them? I sure hope you're not that naive.

 

By the way Kevin is right, overall gun deaths are actually decreasing as well as overall violent crime while gun ownership is increasing. The only thing that you're seeing covered more are mass shootings at schools, theaters, ect. Those are terrible things for sure but if overall gun violence and deaths are decreasing then what could be the cause for mass school shootings to rise? It obviously isn't guns themselves. There is no evidence to support that. Instead why don't we start trying to figure out what is wrong with our schools and our kids. They are killing each other and themselves at alarming rates yet no one seems to actually give a shit. And you can't say they do cause it isn't changing or even getting the least bit better. They're worried about a witch hunt of things they know nothing of and breeze by the actual problems under their nose.

 

If guns are considered tools, then they're tools to help kill someone or something. We don't even need guns in our lives anyway, other than to fight wars.

 

Funny thing is, there have been different solutions, but gun maniacs prefer to ignore them and/or give up because they can't come up with a good counter and say "BuT aT lEaSt We GoT 2nD aMeNdMeNt!!1"

 

What makes you so sure we won't need guns in our lives? What are these so called solutions? Gun bans? Stricter gun control? How would they be implemented? Are you even able to rationalize the thought of how to do that in your head or are you just so dense that someone has to figure it out for you? There is no reality where that can or would happen here. All I ever hear out of people like you is short sighted views on what they think the problem is and then ad hominem after ad hominem.

[Generations]

In a perfect world, humans have absolutely no reason to "need" guns. That's a fact, tbh.

 

You can hunt with arrows, a spear, any number of other means. The only justification that people have for "needing" guns...is because other people have guns, and those people might pose a threat to someone who does not have one. That's it. So, yeah...in a world where guns don't exist at all...humans absolutely don't "need" them.

 

Of course, that's not a realistic scenario. Even still, "need" is a questionable term. I don't feel that I need one. I think the only people who do think that they "need" a gun, are people who have these grand theories about armed militias marching onto their property. Ironically, those same people are basically the ones shaping a future where that might be possible.

[Purple Rayne]

I wish you had an answer because I'd be curious to hear it.But in regards to your reply to WNX where you asked "What were the other problems". I'd argue that mental illness is a bigger problem than guns themselves.

 

How about the fact that despite the number of guns increasing in this country, the number of gun deaths are actually decreasing? Or the fact that 50 something % of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, and the fact that suicides continue to increase in this country. Showing that for some reason we as a society seem more and more willing to kill ourselves or each other. And until we address that problem, whatever we do about guns is going to mean very little IMO.

 

I can see that. The thing is, though, solving mental illness is a far more difficult, long term undertaking. It's likely going to be a long time before we solve it. In the meantime, doing something about guns might serve as a tourniquet, until we're able to fix the ultimate, underlying issue.

 

I can't say that with any degree of certainty, but I'd wager that it's probably better than doing nothing.

 

Dude what are you even on about? lol. An instrument and a tool are one in the same. It is a synonym for tool.

 

An instrument isn't necessarily a tool, and a tool isn't necessarily an instrument. Synonyms are words with similarities and overlap - not words that mean the exact same thing in all contexts. They're still different.

 

And pro gun people have no problem making the distinction. It's the other way around actually.

 

What are you talking about? I literally just gave you an example scenario of when pro-gun people fail to make the distinction (the "Why not regulate knives?" argument). When does the anti-gun crowd tout similar logic?

 

You clearly lack a problem with knives that are used to kill thousands every year but only have an issue with guns because of the same reason?

 

Strawman. No, not for "the same reason." I've clearly stated the reason for my issue with guns.

 

My reason for treating guns differently is because of what guns are: weapons, specifically designed to kill things. Knives do not fall under that category. Same goes for literally anything else. Hammers, vehicles, and whatever other object that people bring up in an attempt to make a comparison.

 

Who gives a shit what the purpose they are made for is, literally everything can be used to kill someone.

 

And around and around we go. You're now making the very argument that I've already been criticizing.

 

Yes, damn-near anything can be used to kill someone, but unlike those other things, that's what guns are for, and serve no meaningful, necessary purpose beyond killing things. They are inescapably married to the category of weaponry, unlike other objects. Thus, we need to address them differently.

 

Instead of focusing on a number of possible issues like poverty, mental health, lack of morals, and bad parenting, we instead focus on one style of weapon that is the tool or instrument used.

 

"One style of weapon"? What are the other styles? If you say knives or something, then you're once again making the categorical error that I've already explained. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

 

Where's your statistics on how guns are the problem? You don't think there will be as much mass killings without them? I sure hope you're not that naive.

 

Statistics are irrelevant - guns are a problem by definition, because of what they are.

 

As for whether or not there would still be as many mass killings without them, I don't know, and neither do you. That isn't the point. Even if the amount of mass killings was unchanged, guns are still a problem... because of what they are. The very concept of guns is a problem.

 

By the way Kevin is right, overall gun deaths are actually decreasing as well as overall violent crime while gun ownership is increasing. The only thing that you're seeing covered more are mass shootings at schools, theaters, ect. Those are terrible things for sure but if overall gun violence and deaths are decreasing then what could be the cause for mass school shootings to rise? It obviously isn't guns themselves. There is no evidence to support that. Instead why don't we start trying to figure out what is wrong with our schools and our kids.

 

I agree. As I was saying to Kevin, though, that's a large undertaking that's going to take time. In the meantime, if these shootings are going to continue happening, we should consider doing something about guns. They're the popular choice of mass killers for a reason.

[Bdon]

In a perfect world, humans have absolutely no reason to "need" guns. That's a fact, tbh.

 

You can hunt with arrows, a spear, any number of other means. The only justification that people have for "needing" guns...is because other people have guns, and those people might pose a threat to someone who does not have one. That's it. So, yeah...in a world where guns don't exist at all...humans absolutely don't "need" them.

 

Of course, that's not a realistic scenario. Even still, "need" is a questionable term. I don't feel that I need one. I think the only people who do think that they "need" a gun, are people who have these grand theories about armed militias marching onto their property. Ironically, those same people are basically the ones shaping a future where that might be possible.

Why even discuss a scenario that will never exist? It's a pipe dream so it really doesn't do much for your point. Also people just want to make sure that never happens. There will be no grand marches any time soon is because we have them. Not that hard to grasp. You can poke holes or poke fun but it is what it is. If you don't need one then don't own one. Pretty basic stuff here. You just don't have a say in other people's needs or desires. There is no irony. The ones pushing for a police state are not the gun owners. That's kind of dumb to say they're the ones pushing for it. I don't think you really get any of it tbh.

 

 

I wish you had an answer because I'd be curious to hear it.But in regards to your reply to WNX where you asked "What were the other problems". I'd argue that mental illness is a bigger problem than guns themselves.

 

How about the fact that despite the number of guns increasing in this country, the number of gun deaths are actually decreasing? Or the fact that 50 something % of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, and the fact that suicides continue to increase in this country. Showing that for some reason we as a society seem more and more willing to kill ourselves or each other. And until we address that problem, whatever we do about guns is going to mean very little IMO.

 

I can see that. The thing is, though, solving mental illness is a far more difficult, long term undertaking. It's likely going to be a long time before we solve it. In the meantime, doing something about guns might serve as a tourniquet, until we're able to fix the ultimate, underlying issue.

 

I can't say that with any degree of certainty, but I'd wager that it's probably better than doing nothing.

 

Dude what are you even on about? lol. An instrument and a tool are one in the same. It is a synonym for tool.

 

An instrument isn't necessarily a tool, and a tool isn't necessarily an instrument. Synonyms are words with similarities and overlap - not words that mean the exact same thing in all contexts. They're still different.

 

And pro gun people have no problem making the distinction. It's the other way around actually.

 

What are you talking about? I literally just gave you an example scenario of when pro-gun people fail to make the distinction (the "Why not regulate knives?" argument). When does the anti-gun crowd tout similar logic?

 

You clearly lack a problem with knives that are used to kill thousands every year but only have an issue with guns because of the same reason?

 

Strawman. No, not for "the same reason." I've clearly stated the reason for my issue with guns.

 

My reason for treating guns differently is because of what guns are: weapons, specifically designed to kill things. Knives do not fall under that category. Same goes for literally anything else. Hammers, vehicles, and whatever other object that people bring up in an attempt to make a comparison.

 

Who gives a shit what the purpose they are made for is, literally everything can be used to kill someone.

 

And around and around we go. You're now making the very argument that I've already been criticizing.

 

Yes, damn-near anything can be used to kill someone, but unlike those other things, that's what guns are for, and serve no meaningful, necessary purpose beyond killing things. They are inescapably married to the category of weaponry, unlike other objects. Thus, we need to address them differently.

 

Instead of focusing on a number of possible issues like poverty, mental health, lack of morals, and bad parenting, we instead focus on one style of weapon that is the tool or instrument used.

 

"One style of weapon"? What are the other styles? If you say knives or something, then you're once again making the categorical error that I've already explained. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

 

Where's your statistics on how guns are the problem? You don't think there will be as much mass killings without them? I sure hope you're not that naive.

 

Statistics are irrelevant - guns are a problem by definition, because of what they are.

 

As for whether or not there would still be as many mass killings without them, I don't know, and neither do you. That isn't the point. Even if the amount of mass killings was unchanged, guns are still a problem... because of what they are. The very concept of guns is a problem.

 

By the way Kevin is right, overall gun deaths are actually decreasing as well as overall violent crime while gun ownership is increasing. The only thing that you're seeing covered more are mass shootings at schools, theaters, ect. Those are terrible things for sure but if overall gun violence and deaths are decreasing then what could be the cause for mass school shootings to rise? It obviously isn't guns themselves. There is no evidence to support that. Instead why don't we start trying to figure out what is wrong with our schools and our kids.

 

I agree. As I was saying to Kevin, though, that's a large undertaking that's going to take time. In the meantime, if these shootings are going to continue happening, we should consider doing something about guns. They're the popular choice of mass killers for a reason.

 

1. Yes, they are not the same in all contexts but in this situation they are used interchangeably. They both can and do fit. It's kind of dumb to still be arguing about this.

 

2. There is no logic used by those on the anti gun side.

 

3. It's ridiculous to only view guns differently because they are in a different category. You act as if they are nukes or some shit. If people are murdering people then we should probably find out why and not how. You don't solve things that way.

 

4. Again who cares? If cars are killing 100,000 a year and guns are killing 100,000 a year, you ask why is this happening and what can we do. You don't say well we keep cars and get rid of guns because one isn't designed for this specifically. That argument is asinine. You can sit there and bitch about shaky semantics and flawed logic. You don't have to like the culture here but it isn't going anywhere. And the people that so many bitch about that "cling to their guns at night" aren't the ones that are committing crimes and causing problems. It's sick individuals and gangs that do most of it. So you just wanna to punish the majority now to keep from dealing with a lifetimes worth of real issues? Ok.

 

5. Weapons are weapons. If you take a knife to school they consider it a weapon. It is considered by most a tool and a weapon just like a gun. I get you categorize them yourself the way you want but there are different styles of weapons and the one that are attacked the most are guns. Lately it's been AR-15's. Not that complicated.

 

6. And yes statistics do matter, lol. You're going to need them and a little bit of actual knowledge of guns before you start telling people they are the problem. Speaking of everyone needs to make up their minds instead of changing it from one day to the next. First it's not all guns. It's just certain guns and mass killings. Now it's guns are the problem period. You would rather spend time, money, and resources on something that won't work and willing to do it on behalf of others freedoms without any proof or evidence just because you don't want to stand by and do nothing? But that's good enough for you right? At least you can say you tried. To hell with finding real causes. Lets look at the object used and just take it away from everyone. That'll stop it. Yeah!

Talk about lazy and incompetent.

 

You also need to realize the implications of these actions. I don't think you fully understand what they are or maybe you don't care but this would have a far greater impact than you think.

[Generations]

 

In a perfect world, humans have absolutely no reason to "need" guns. That's a fact, tbh.

 

You can hunt with arrows, a spear, any number of other means. The only justification that people have for "needing" guns...is because other people have guns, and those people might pose a threat to someone who does not have one. That's it. So, yeah...in a world where guns don't exist at all...humans absolutely don't "need" them.

 

Of course, that's not a realistic scenario. Even still, "need" is a questionable term. I don't feel that I need one. I think the only people who do think that they "need" a gun, are people who have these grand theories about armed militias marching onto their property. Ironically, those same people are basically the ones shaping a future where that might be possible.

Why even discuss a scenario that will never exist? It's a pipe dream so it really doesn't do much for your point. Also people just want to make sure that never happens. There will be no grand marches any time soon is because we have them. Not that hard to grasp. You can poke holes or poke fun but it is what it is. If you don't need one then don't own one. Pretty basic stuff here. You just don't have a say in other people's needs or desires. There is no irony. The ones pushing for a police state are not the gun owners. That's kind of dumb to say they're the ones pushing for it. I don't think you really get any of it tbh.

 

 

 

Because that's what "need" means. It would be bullshit to pretend that people "need" guns only because they already exist. When you analyze life at its very core, people don't need guns. Hence, the only need for guns exists because guns already exist. That's like having a disease that is man-made...then saying people "need" the cure. I mean...no, people would actually be just fine if they stopped doing whatever was causing the disease in the first place.

[Bdon]

I'm still trying to figure out why you feel the need to say shit outside of reality lol. What the hell is the point? You also are constantly making some bullshit statements that are pretty plain and obvious. I guess from now on I'll come in and say pointless shit like my truck is white so no one can prove me wrong. You are operating outside realm of real issues here. What good is it to do that? That's like saying no one would even know about nukes if we never created them. Duh.

[Generations]

It's not "outside of reality"...it's fact and definition. "Need" at the basest form only means one damn thing. You can't create a problem and then claim that there's a "need" for the solution. Without the problem, there is no need. It's not something that human life requires. I don't "need" pants either (although, at least pants serve the purpose of keeping someone protected from cold, which is a part of life, not a man-made problem.) There's no "need" for a solution to a problem that man has created for himself...only a need to stop creating said problem.

[M3J]

There are actually articles on how blaming mental illness is not only incorrect, but dangerous as well. It's just a cop-out excuse avoid the issue that guns are the biggest problem because of how easy they are to get and how easily they can kill.

 

Gun lovers will come up with excuses after excuses to defend guns, facts and actual stats don't matter. There have been solutions, but gun lovers will ignore these solutions and clam there's no solution. Not even in a perfect world, we don't need guns now at all, and our ancestors did survive for hundreds of thousands of years without guns. I don't even get this unhealthy obsession with guns, but it's whatever.

[Generations]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biAh7_jD6HA

 

lol...Corny. I'm quickly becoming a Corny mark.

 

I don't agree with everything he says here, and some of it is obviously taking the piss. But I love his conviction. Lmao.

[WNX]

 

 

And? What's your point? So it makes it a bit easier to kill things and is specifically for killing things most of the time. What's your point?

You just answered your own question. Because of what guns are, we obviously need to do something about them. What, exactly? I don't know.

 

I wish you had an answer because I'd be curious to hear it.But in regards to your reply to WNX where you asked "What were the other problems". I'd argue that mental illness is a bigger problem than guns themselves.

 

How about the fact that despite the number of guns increasing in this country, the number of gun deaths are actually decreasing? Or the fact that 50 something % of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, and the fact that suicides continue to increase in this country. Showing that for some reason we as a society seem more and more willing to kill ourselves or each other. And until we address that problem, whatever we do about guns is going to mean very little IMO.

 

I haven't caught up with the responses on this page but I didn't wanna be like a certain someone, who has been ignoring my question for like 5 pages back but will not be named because I'm tired of waiting and not respond (wrong thread, they're so interchangable sometimes). but yes, nWo Kevin I agree with. Yes, mental illness is hard to attack but what's the alternative? You remove the guns from the equation entirely. What does this do?

 

You get rid of the possibility of a disruptive individual from shooting up an establishment at least through gun acquired by legal means. You alienate a large group of individuals who 1)Don't have any want to shoot up a large group of people or any people period. 2)Take away a key aspect of many households' security, people who actually feel helpless without it. 3)People who actually use them to get food, because that's still very much a thing. People also want what they cannot have. You remove the guns, it becomes a commodity, and when people feel that they need something or know that people need it, no matter how material they may be, the lengths they could and will go to get it leads to a whole other problem.

 

If you put a gun in my hand, I'm not gonna go shoot 20 people. I have no interest in that. It doesn't benefit me. Guns have been around since any of us were born. they've always been there. It's the people that change, the environment that we live in change,our way of life changes. Every day this world breaks a little more and a little more, but it's not because guns break it. Regardless of what they were designed to do, guns can kill but they don't kill by themselves. You need PEOPLE for that. The PEOPLE are the issue. You remove the PEOPLE willing to use the guns to kill PEOPLE, the PEOPLE who use guns but don't are what's left. It's impossible to fix, it truly is, but you can't send a gun to jail. Guns don't feel pain. Guns don't feel remorse. They can give a shit who lives or dies and if they spend their entire life locked in a cabinet they can care less.

 

People are the issue. Guns are an issue when broken people aren't dealt with

[Purple Rayne]

1. Yes, they are not the same in all contexts but in this situation they are used interchangeably. They both can and do fit. It's kind of dumb to still be arguing about this.

 

You're attempting to use them interchangeably when you shouldn't be. That's my point.

 

2. There is no logic used by those on the anti gun side.

 

Nice non-answer. You just blatantly avoided answering my question. That's at least twice now that you've been fallacious.

 

3. It's ridiculous to only view guns differently because they are in a different category. You act as if they are nukes or some shit. If people are murdering people then we should probably find out why and not how. You don't solve things that way.

 

It's not because they're merely in a different category - it's because of why they're in a different category. As for finding out the 'why' instead of the 'how', both are important things to consider. You're arbitrarily excluding the 'how' and claiming that it doesn't matter (which you haven't demonstrated), because to do otherwise would collapse your narrative of guns not being a problem.

 

You don't say well we keep cars and get rid of guns because one isn't designed for this specifically. That argument is asinine.

 

Yes you do. That's the very crux of the issue. By virtue of the fact that anything can be used as a weapon, it thereby doesn't matter if people kill others with cars, or knives, or whatever. These things need to continue existing, because they're currently essential to the function and flourishing of our society. They're multipurpose, and only fall under the category of weaponry through ill intent... unlike guns, which are inherently weaponry, and nothing else.

 

That's, like, at least the third time I've explained this.

 

So you just wanna to punish the majority now to keep from dealing with a lifetimes worth of real issues? Ok.

 

I haven't even proposed a solution, so why are you assuming that whatever conceptual change that someone comes up with would be something that feels like punishment? As if there's nothing remotely amicable that we could come up with?

 

You have a very obvious bias.

 

5. Weapons are weapons. If you take a knife to school they consider it a weapon. It is considered by most a tool and a weapon just like a gun. I get you categorize them yourself the way you want but there are different styles of weapons and the one that are attacked the most are guns. Lately it's been AR-15's. Not that complicated.

 

Of course they treat it as a weapon in that context. It's a precautionary measure.

 

You're once again illuminating my point. A knife could possibly be a weapon, but not necessarily. It's only a weapon through the filter of intent. A gun is always a weapon, regardless of intent. Even if someone never used it to kill anything, it's still a weapon, unlike knives.

 

A gun is not a tool. You're categorically wrong, and your single, desperate attempt at demonstrating otherwise was coming up with some weird, niche scenario of competitive sports.

 

6. And yes statistics do matter, lol. You're going to need them and a little bit of actual knowledge of guns before you start telling people they are the problem. Speaking of everyone needs to make up their minds instead of changing it from one day to the next. First it's not all guns. It's just certain guns and mass killings. Now it's guns are the problem period. You would rather spend time, money, and resources on something that won't work and willing to do it on behalf of others freedoms without any proof or evidence just because you don't want to stand by and do nothing? But that's good enough for you right? At least you can say you tried. To hell with finding real causes. Lets look at the object used and just take it away from everyone. That'll stop it. Yeah!

Talk about lazy and incompetent.

 

You also need to realize the implications of these actions. I don't think you fully understand what they are or maybe you don't care but this would have a far greater impact than you think.

 

No, statistics don't matter in this context. Even if a gun had yet to be used to kill an innocent person, they are still a problem, by definition, because of what guns are. They only way that they wouldn't be an inherent problem is if we lived in a perfect world where there's no evil, no strife, no mental illness, no accidents, etc.

 

The rest of that paragraph was just non-sequitur bloviating that has nothing to do with me or my position, so I'm not going to address it.

 

This will be my last response to you. You're not particularly intelligent, have committed numerous fallacies, and are unabashedly biased. I don't have anything to gain by continuing.

[Bdon]

 

1. Yes, they are not the same in all contexts but in this situation they are used interchangeably. They both can and do fit. It's kind of dumb to still be arguing about this.

 

You're attempting to use them interchangeably when you shouldn't be. That's my point.

 

2. There is no logic used by those on the anti gun side.

 

Nice non-answer. You just blatantly avoided answering my question. That's at least twice now that you've been fallacious.

 

3. It's ridiculous to only view guns differently because they are in a different category. You act as if they are nukes or some shit. If people are murdering people then we should probably find out why and not how. You don't solve things that way.

 

It's not because they're merely in a different category - it's because of why they're in a different category. As for finding out the 'why' instead of the 'how', both are important things to consider. You're arbitrarily excluding the 'how' and claiming that it doesn't matter (which you haven't demonstrated), because to do otherwise would collapse your narrative of guns not being a problem.

 

You don't say well we keep cars and get rid of guns because one isn't designed for this specifically. That argument is asinine.

 

Yes you do. That's the very crux of the issue. By virtue of the fact that anything can be used as a weapon, it thereby doesn't matter if people kill others with cars, or knives, or whatever. These things need to continue existing, because they're currently essential to the function and flourishing of our society. They're multipurpose, and only fall under the category of weaponry through ill intent... unlike guns, which are inherently weaponry, and nothing else.

 

That's, like, at least the third time I've explained this.

 

So you just wanna to punish the majority now to keep from dealing with a lifetimes worth of real issues? Ok.

 

I haven't even proposed a solution, so why are you assuming that whatever conceptual change that someone comes up with would be something that feels like punishment? As if there's nothing remotely amicable that we could come up with?

 

You have a very obvious bias.

 

5. Weapons are weapons. If you take a knife to school they consider it a weapon. It is considered by most a tool and a weapon just like a gun. I get you categorize them yourself the way you want but there are different styles of weapons and the one that are attacked the most are guns. Lately it's been AR-15's. Not that complicated.

 

Of course they treat it as a weapon in that context. It's a precautionary measure.

 

You're once again illuminating my point. A knife could possibly be a weapon, but not necessarily. It's only a weapon through the filter of intent. A gun is always a weapon, regardless of intent. Even if someone never used it to kill anything, it's still a weapon, unlike knives.

 

A gun is not a tool. You're categorically wrong, and your single, desperate attempt at demonstrating otherwise was coming up with some weird, niche scenario of competitive sports.

 

6. And yes statistics do matter, lol. You're going to need them and a little bit of actual knowledge of guns before you start telling people they are the problem. Speaking of everyone needs to make up their minds instead of changing it from one day to the next. First it's not all guns. It's just certain guns and mass killings. Now it's guns are the problem period. You would rather spend time, money, and resources on something that won't work and willing to do it on behalf of others freedoms without any proof or evidence just because you don't want to stand by and do nothing? But that's good enough for you right? At least you can say you tried. To hell with finding real causes. Lets look at the object used and just take it away from everyone. That'll stop it. Yeah!

Talk about lazy and incompetent.

 

You also need to realize the implications of these actions. I don't think you fully understand what they are or maybe you don't care but this would have a far greater impact than you think.

 

No, statistics don't matter in this context. Even if a gun had yet to be used to kill an innocent person, they are still a problem, by definition, because of what guns are. They only way that they wouldn't be an inherent problem is if we lived in a perfect world where there's no evil, no strife, no mental illness, no accidents, etc.

 

The rest of that paragraph was just non-sequitur bloviating that has nothing to do with me or my position, so I'm not going to address it.

 

This will be my last response to you. You're not particularly intelligent, have committed numerous fallacies, and are unabashedly biased. I enjoy flexing, but it gets boring after a while.

 

 

 

HAAHAHAHAHA! That's hilarious. I was waiting for that. Speaking of definitions. Pseudo intellectualism much? lol. Listen I get it. We can all be a bit pretentious here but this just takes the cake.

 

First Gen is on some nonsense about definition of need and now you're still trying to argue your opinion of an instrument or tool. Who gives a shit? If you're not going to talk about a proposal or solution to debate, or the consequences of them why bother? At this point you're just here to throw your vocabulary around. By the way, a hot little tip. That doesn't define your intelligence.

 

You still haven't once said how they are a problem. Only by your definition that they are. Why not expand a little bit more than try to argue shit that doesn't matter. How would you fix it? If you're so sure of the problem then you should be sure or at least have an idea on how to fix the problem.

 

If you don't want to and want to excuse yourself then please feel free to do so. It still beats whatever pretentious other shit you probably have to say.

[Generations]

Yeah...how dare I talk about objectively accurate definitions of words.

[Bdon]

Yeah...how dare I talk about objectively accurate definitions of words.

You sure as hell aren't making any points by doing so. Not one of you can offer a viable solution. Instead you just bitch.

[AONO.]

Bdon, your whole point is that they are not a problem, and "people will always kill people". So don't turn it around. Because you are far from constructive.you are asking for solution but never even once have tried to offer one.

 

That also reminds me of conservative pseudo intelectual rhetoric where they will contantly ask for proof for everything but fail to back up their arguments. They think they do, but they don't.

 

And yeah you rarely have backed up claims. Yet you act like you do, and ask of others to have them. That's not how it works. You didn't even counter anything in the kast few posts. Come on dude.

[Bdon]

Bdon, your whole point is that they are not a problem, and "people will always kill people". So don't turn it around. Because you are far from constructive.you are asking for solution but never even once have tried to offer one.

 

That also reminds me of conservative pseudo intelectual rhetoric where they will contantly ask for proof for everything but fail to back up their arguments. They think they do, but they don't.

 

And yeah you rarely have backed up claims. Yet you act like you do, and ask of others to have them. That's not how it works. You didn't even counter anything in the kast few posts. Come on dude.

I'm sorry, what was I supposed to counter exactly? I'm not saying I would agree but I'm trying to understand where people get the mindset they have. I'm trying to understand what the hell they are talking about. Heaven forbid I ask for a little proof. I mean usually when someone believes in something strong enough to post it they would at least have a valid point. At the very least understand the topic. Most here know very little about guns to be honest. I'm just one of the very few to point it out. If you want to come in and just make statements or give opinions then do so. But if you decide to trash others for theirs and start going into how they are wrong then you probably need to have a little knowledge cause you'll get called out.

 

And I have made arguments and points in the past but it was either scoffed at because it wasn't good enough or it was looked over. You don't have to agree but you can't sit there and say I haven't before. If you want my views or want answers..again, then ask me questions and I'll give my answers. Educate yourselves on guns before debating. It's not that hard. I may be outnumbered here on my views but at least I'm out of my echo chamber of circle jerking and I try to constantly. Can you say the same? Or are you gonna try and turn it around yet again?

 

What about you? What's your solution? You wanna be constructive, now's your chance.