Why would the police enforce it? That puts them in danger. They’d much rather shoot unarmed people and call it a day, rather than enforce preventative measures and in the process work on developing a relationship with the community.
what a remarkably ahistorical view on firearms.
1 Like
I didn’t see this earlier. That is weird. I swear some times BB posts seem to Ghost. Just pop up where they weren’t.
But anyway, we are comparing accidents to accidents. This law is made to reduce accidents, of which there are about 800 deaths per year in the US. It doesn’t have any affect on gun crime (~12000), though there might be a very minor affect on suicides (~21000).
Words have meanings. Someone said guns had “no use other than killing and injuring human beings”. Which is patently false. It is as false as saying cars are only used for jumping ramps and racing around from the cops. If your extent of knowledge of cars came from The Dukes of Hazard, you would assume that statement to be true. Most people see guns on the news for crime, or in games, TV, and movies shooting people. So while I understand where they get that perception, that doesn’t reflect the real world use of guns.
Yes they are used to kill people in self defense, in criminal acts, or by accident. If only 10% of the 12 BILLION bullets bought in 2013 were shot that year, you have over a BILLION bullets fired with only 32000 deaths in the US. Which means the VAST overwhelming majority of guns are shooting bullets at something other than humans. Which means while some people buy and use guns with defense in mind, MOST of the time when they are ACTUALLY USING THEM, it is sport and recreation.
Yes the original development of firearms was for war or hunting - so was the bow and arrow and the sword. Yet both of those aren’t demonized as “they were only made to kill people”. And while there are guns marketed for defense, they are many marketed for sport. There is a huge variety of guns and gun owners, so you can’t exactly make broad sweeping statements. So while Browning’s Colt 1911 .45acp was originally made for war, and is still used as a defense weapon, it’s high tech grandson is one of the main choices for USPSA and similar timed shooting sports.
Absolutely.
1 Like
What does democracy have to do with this discussion? Was the issue decided by public referendum or a court of law?
Sounds like a classic appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
It takes considerably more skill and strength to kill someone with a sword or bow and arrow. Guns make it point n’ click.
Why, even a child could do it.
2 Likes
Yes, it makes it easier. But that isn’t the point. The point is nearly all of them are NOT being used to kill people.
More people were killed will blunt object and fists than assault rifles last year. But if I put a hammer on the table, no one is freaking out that I might get up and beat their head in with it. If you see a sword on my wall, I doubt anyone is too worried I am going to run them through. Mention I have an AR and suddenly I am one screwed up Starbucks order from going on a killing spree.
I am talking about perception and cogitative biases and fears vs reality. We are constantly told not to judge other people based on the behavior of a minority. Not all Muslims are terrorists, etc. But some how guns are “only used to shoot people” is a rational statement o_0
1 Like
I see you moving the goal posts there. I was very specific in discussing pistols and actually called out longarms as a separate thing.
Pistols weren’t developed for hunting. They were developed to kill people. The people that walk around in our society with pistols, the ones that we see, are cops and military. They carry them to what? Kill people. They don’t carry them to hunt animals or for target shooting.
Your car analogy doesn’t really hold. I can use a pistol as a hammer too but that doesn’t mean it is the intent of the design.
The primary developed use of a pistol and the use in which the general public, not the “gun enthusiast,” sees it in society is for the shooting of humans.
So, why do you have your knickers in a twist (since you objected) to a law requiring home firearms (which are largely pistols) in a specific city to be locked away when in the home? What’s the problem?
1 Like
Did you not read anything I wrote about all the things people do with pistols besides shoot other people?
I watched you make an argument about guns in general when we both were discussing pistols. Barring a few exceptions (my stepfather hunted a few times with a pistol with a scope), people don’t hunt animals with pistols. Their use is to shoot people. The fact that people have repurposed them for target shooting doesn’t make it their primary purpose in this world. Bows and arrows, like longarms such as rifles and shotguns, have been used for as much as hunting (if not moreso) than people killing. You can’t say that about pistols.
Sorry. Talk to Colonel Colt and the tradition of pistol dueling in multiple nations about it. “Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” Why is this a saying in America after all?
So, when people call out this purpose as their purpose, you really don’t have grounds to object to it. My stepdaddy and my father certainly didn’t buy pistols and keep them in their nightstand so they could go target shooting at midnight from their bedroom.
3 Likes
For the record, I own pistols too so please don’t paint me as some kind of parody of a liberal gun hater. I grew up shooting and still own the firearms. I go to the range, to maintain skills. The purpose of these guns isn’t to plink targets though. That’s what they do to keep up skills for their actual purpose, may the gods keep that from ever coming about. I keep them locked up too and would be much happier if the law here in Oakland required the same of my neighbors.
1 Like
I agree…The primary purpose of most guns is to kill things, many of them are designed specifically to kill humans. Much of target practice is in ancillary to the primary function ie. practicing on targets shaped like human silhouettes with higher scoring regions where more lethal shots would be. There are many guns that have no “sport” or hunting applications whatsoever.
Speaking of cognitive biases, I’ve often wondered why there aren’t many non-lethal alternative guns being sold. If people enjoy this sport as only a sport, isn’t it possible to make things we can point at targets that aren’t capable of killing anyone? I find there is a bit of a cognitive disconnect in this area…a lot of people use a sport argument for keeping their lethal toys, without ever participating in any actual sport shooting. A lot of people argue hunting without owning guns designed for hunting or ever doing any actual hunting. I don’t think most people on either side of the gun debate are against hunting or sport specific guns, imho. especially with proper registration, licensing, and training regulations.
With something like a car, even though its primary purpose isn’t to kill things, it is still dangerous enough that we have to take special courses and get a license prior to using one. We can have that license suspended if we misuse or get into an accident in one that is our fault. We require special specific licenses for certain vehicles types like motorcycles, larger vehicles, heavy equipment, buses, semi trucks, etc. We can’t use them when inebriated. Shouldn’t the bar be at least this high if not higher for something like guns? The best way to ensure gun ownership remains a right is to advocate a responsible accountable gun ownership model, at least that is my opinion for whatever it is worth. Things are crazy in the USA with very little control over gun ownership.
2 Likes
Again, I didn’t say that pistols weren’t useful for shooting people. I said:
-
That isn’t the only thing they are used for. (The original statement I contradicted.)
-
There are many sports, including hunting, people use pistols for. In fact the pistol sports are probably the most varied and fastest growing of all the shooting sports.
-
I am not sure why you are focused on their supposed PURPOSE. Lets look at their ACTUAL USE. Millions of people own a use pistols and manage to not shoot anyone. Including those who bought them for defense.
Just like there are different kinds of automobiles for different kinds of jobs, there are pistols sold with defense in mind (though, again, nearly all of them are never USED for that), there are also a ton sold with sport in mind (see pic in my example above), and some even are made for hunting (it is a niche, but there are people who hunt primarily with pistols. Even big stuff like bears).
Well it is a darn shame they didn’t use it for anything besides defense. There are whole divisions set aside in things like USPSA where your stock Glock or revolver can compete during the day, and give you peace of mind at night.
pardon me sir; before you home invade me, allow me to unlock and load my firearm despite the fact i live in a child-free home.
aren’t you statistically 4.2 times more likely to be killed in a home invasion by having an unlocked loaded firearm?
1 Like
73.6% of all statistics are made up. do you want to try kicking in my door and find out who is right?
except that isn’t a made up statistic, and everyone thinks that they are different and the exception.
i’m not the kind of person who would ever invade someone’s home, but thanks for playing the make your day and try it and you’ll shoot me card…that’s pretty messed up.
2 Likes
I’m sure you have tons of experience with your prosthetic dick, but much like unsolicited sexting, bragging about your willingness to kill people is fucked up and gross.
2 Likes
you are also statistically more likely to be in order of probability killed by a police officer, struck by lightning or win the lottery than killed by a terrorist.
here is an idea: don’t try and rob, rape or murder me; and i won’t do my best to kill you first.
yep, the war on terror is undeniably a geopolitical tool and terrorism is not that great a threat to any one individuals life.
you are correct that you are far more likely to be killed by a police office with a gun despite them being highly trained in gun usage and being in a position where their job is to protect civilians and enforce the law. despite that they have a legitimate reason to carry.
not sure how your comment pertains to the discussion at hand though.
again, that is pretty messed up thinking. it is frightening that anyone with that state of mind has a loaded gun, imho.
how about not threatening murder as a deterrent and instead working to address the social issues that lead to the problems you list so that you and everyone else is less likely to be in such a situation in the first place? people committing such acts have the exact same kind of power over, they will come out on top, damn the consequences, disregard for the well being of others attitude as you are expressing. seeing who can kill who first is the worst possible solution.
1 Like
