Szczepankiewicz

I realize that we are arguing semantics here. And most will not see the point that I am trying to make.

I entirely understand what you are saying Kingston. That firearms were meant to kill.


However I disagree. A firearm is a machine. If it was meant to kill then I would be under the impression that every single time it was used, it would result in death. Or by it's very existence it would kill. And this is not the case.

I will stipulate that firearms are often used to kill. And I think that is the point Kingston is really trying to bring home. I have understood that from the beginning of this very long thread.

My comparisons to other guns is that they are all machines that serve the same primary purpose, to deliver a payload. The primary purpose of a firearm is no more to kill than that of a nail gun is to build a condominium.

The nail gun aids in the contsruction of the condominium just like a firearm can and often does aid in the end of a life.

All I ask at this point is that you seek to understand what MY point is.

Spanky

Kingston

not every single time a firearm is used its to kill someone. You need to practice "killing" on a target first.
i also understand that not all shootings result in death.
i realize that a gun just by existing cannot kill.

not just that. Firearms have become so "usefull" because they are a better killing weapons then anything else at the moment, and are relativly cheep and low tech to the alternatives.

so when you buy a gun your buying a machine that was made to be able to kill another person, and also because that fact, is, for the most part, the "MAIN" reason a gun is produced, you can come to the conclusion that because that items main requirements for "quality" is its ability to deliver a projectile at "killing" speed, its purpose is (though is some cases decorational, or sport) to kill.

i have to disagree with you there.

i understand how you could look at it that way. "it only takes one bullet" to end the "trouble" in Iraq. I dont agree with it for the most part. though there are specific scenarios where i would agree with you.

I think i have a good idea at what your point is....

Guns are machines like any other machine, be it a blender nail gun, or car. The purpose for that machine lies in the hands of the person who is using it at the time. You could turn a nail gun into a "deadly weapon" if you wanted to, go on a rampage of death in your car. It all depends on the owners intent for that machine. The use of the machine is not regulated so much by the manufacturer as the owner.

did i get close?

P.S.

ya, my last post really sucked, it was kind of long and pointless

ryanhall

LOL, Spanky. Only now do you understand my pain. Lilly-livered anti-gun Canadians

How about this for everybody: If one thing is 'meant to kill,' and another is meant to help us, is it ok for the thing that meant to help us kills us far more often than the deadly, dangerous, inherently evil GUN?

For example:
Cars kill thousands more people every day in America than do guns. In Canada (this one is exceptionally important for Kingston), the rate is EVEN HIGHER (guns are largely illegal, and therefore kill less people). Automobiles are thousand of times more dangerous to Canadians than the dreaded firearm. The same thing goes for physicians--they are downright deadly when compared to guns. The number of accidental deaths each year is astonishing. If you doubt me, please feel free to check national statistics (I did ).

Sure, cars, doctors, garden weasels, etc. help us. But then again, so do guns. Hunting doesn't get done with pointed sticks and aerodymanic stones anymore. We don't defend our borders with harsh language.

The Columbine example is erroneous, because those kids could have killed just as many people by running a pickup truck into the front doors of the school at 3 pm. Guns were used, but they were one of many, many possible means that could have been chosen. Are we going to ban the study of chemistry because chemical elements and compounds are used in the making of explosives?

The real question is: what has happened to society if its members are not responsible enough to be trusted with a gun shorter than three feet in length? That's something to think about. When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them. No inanimate object is inherently evil. It is the actions of its user that determine its fate. Every parent who says "if guns were illegal, my child would still be alive" is fooling themselves, and refuses to take responsibility for their own actions. If people were responsible, gun ownership wouldn't even be an issue.

__________________
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"

ryanhall

Didn't this used to be a martial arts website?

__________________
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"

Kingston

*sigh*

yes, it is ok. Well its not ok, but accidents happen...
Guns aren't evil silly. Well ok, glue guns are devil spawn...

lol.

you mean the ratio is higher...(deaths guns v.s. death cars)
im pretty sure Canada's gun ownship V.S. population is fairly close to that of the U.S. i could be wrong. Only illegal guns are illegal in canada

lol statistics are only as good as the person interpreting them....
car accidents and gun control have no correlation. so really, it doesn't matter how many people are getting killed by other stuff, it doesn't change the fact that america does or doesn't have a "gun problem"

i would say Canada definately does not have a "gun problem"

Garden weasels?
people should hunt...why? its fun to kill things THATS WHY!!
you mean we DONT defend our boarders with harsh lanuage??!?! im gunna have to write a letter to the government!
im not anti-gun. im anti-gun for personal protection.

first time iv heard the word columbine in this thread (bowling for columbine doesn't count lol)
yes those kids could have used many things to kill peolpe. Just happens that the most effectively deadly tool was also the easiest to get.
no i dont think a truck would have been as effective.

"three feet in length" lol. For personal protection? Anyone who needs that much firepower shouldn't be trusted
you could also say "what has happened to society if its own members cant be responsible enough not to rape and kill each other on a daily basis."

are we talking about guns? if so, well the police would have em to....oh, and the military...

your right an inanimate object cant be evil.....
oh, and the action performed by the user are limited to what can be performed with the machine.

for a gun...hmm lets think, you can shoot it...throw it....look at it....shoot it...use it as some sort of hammer.....did i say shoot it?

if everyone was responsible people we wouldn't need police, or amy's........you right LETS ALL BE RESPONSIBLE......i feel the world becoming a better place already.

if guns were illegal those "irresponsible" parents who got a gun to protect there children, would not have a dead child because that kid thought the gun wasn't loaded, or the safety was on, or got high and thought it would be cool to show his friends. or they were sitting in a class room and that kid who got bullied alot walks in...(if i was bullied and wanted to kill some one, i wouldn't even know were to start to find a gun.....)

come on ryan.....your making this to easy for me

Kingston

its all about the open access now baby OH YEAH!!

whos with me?

taebot

A disscussion of guns is well within the martial perview...

__________________
A fencer of the woodcut school.

ryanhall

You'd know better, but I thought that handguns and concealed carry licenses were illegal, or at the very least, very hard to come by.

__________________
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"

ryanhall

To be honest, I didn't really read the entire thread--too text and opinion heavy. I saw the word "Columbine" and went with it.

You've gotta get your issues straight. Are you anti-gun or anti-handgun? Shotguns are used for personal protection at home.

You're telling me that road rage related deaths/injuries have nothing in common with gun-related deaths. The latter may be even more disturbing, as the act is actively carried out by the guilty party.

It's called a rifle--took into it.

Gee, those guys are really helpful when you need them. Next time I have a problem at the local bar, I'll just call in Delta Force or SEAL team six--they'll jump to my command. The cops are not your first line of defense. They are often there to arrest everybody, not just the guilty party. The cops also cannot be there when nobody has called them. Most muggers won't allow you to pull out your cool new Motorola and drop a line to the local precinct.

Everything is black and white when you see it from a one-sided viewpoint. I don't always argue my opinion--I argue an opionion. Try to understand the opposing viewpoint.

A discussion on their USE would be valuable. Since their combat utility is not in question, this is an arguement of ideologies. A discussion (with a Canadian--no big deal, but an important distinction) about whether or not guns should be banned or restricted in America is not.

__________________
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"

Kingston

At the risk of prolonging this thread im going to reply.......again.

heh, shouldn't you read the whole post if your going to coment on it?

when i said i was anti-gun for personal protection i ment anit-firearm for personal protection......so yes im not a fan of shotguns for protection at home...

road rage related deaths dont have anything to do with gun-related deaths...unless of course the person gets road rage and has a gun with him.....

lol, a rifle eh? never heard of it i dont think that technology has made its way up to Canada yet.....

but seriously who needs a 3 foot long rifle for personal protection....(people who would rather kill then injure/subdue an intruder...thats who)

call delta force BWAHAHAHAHA....thats a good one.
if a mugger doesn't have a gun, its alot harder for him to do his job....its hard to run from bullets...not so hard to run from a guy.

dont worry i am....iv never beleaved in a black and white mentality.....its accualy a problem i have.....i cant choose what side to root for. I also dont beleave in evil.....

This whole thread i have been talking about the USE of guns....
Are you saying that because im Canadian my comments about the U.S.A. are not as relavent as someone who lives there?
I have lived in the U.S. for a year. i have many relatives in the States, i also have friends from all around the U.S.

not once in this post has the mention of banning or restricting guns in america been stated. Though i have said that i am anti-gun for personal protection, that is realy just the logical evolution to my point about the "purpose" of firearms. Thats not a contradiction...the thread is not discussing that issue of banning guns...just the USE....what thread have you been reading?

Granted i should have used the word Firearm instead of "gun", but in my mind i knew what i was talking about, and i didn't realize people would missinterpret what i was saying, and think i was talking about a glue-gun or flare-gun, or leaving out shotguns or rifles.

It seems you are guilty of that black and white mentality, or perhaps its a gray or nothing mentality....It doesn't seem to me that you really read what i was saying...not just ryan... so far people have been missing the point of my replies, choosing to focus on non-relavent things such as "well a glue gun wont kill so all guns arent made to kill", or statements like "call the delta force".....i dont know why you would think that when i say im anti-gun for personal protection that i was talking only about a hand-gun and not a shotgun....in my opinion a shot gun falls under the category of a gun.....

In future please read the whole post....and yes i am also anti sub-machine gun for personal protection....

Kingston

"anti-gun or anti handgun?"

i get it now...when i said i was not anti-gun i was anti-gun for personal protection i ment:

Im not an anti-war person, but i am an anti-pointless-war.

when i say anti-gun for personal protection i mean that police need guns...the army need guns....the average joe blow who is afraid or robbers does not need one. oops there i go again sorry i meant joe blow does not need a firearm...(he can have as many nail guns as he wants)

Szczepankiewicz

Can Joe Blow have a glue gun?

Changing directions from the previous argument.

I'm glad you're happy living under the protection provided by others.

I for one will never feel comfortable having someone else make my decisions for me. As long as I don't cause harm to others or have the potential to cause a massive amount of harm (see firearm vs. hand grenade) then personal freedom outweighs collective security.

At least it still does in the US. But just barely.

The First Amendment remains only because of the Second.

Spanky