Support NeoGAF

[railGUN]

It's not hyperbole at all. Nothing about what I said is hyperbolic. It's basic statement of fact. It's a weapon made for firing a bullet at another person. That's how you properly use a gun.

This is why I'm not going to continue. I've properly used guns for most of my life, and I've never, not even once, fired it at another person. Ever. Period.

There's just no rational discussion on this subject to be had with you.

 

[Jonm1010]

Being a responsible gun owner means practicing proper gun safety. Things like locking up your gun, having trigger locks, storing ammo in a separate location, properly transporting it, etc. It doesn't mean learning how to shoot center mass (or why).

Guns are not just for killing people, just like cars are not just for killing people. This hyperbole isn't necessary.

The OVERWHELMING purpose of a gun - and its primary function - is to kill things. That is not the same with cars.

Furthermore with cars I have to be insured, tested both academically and operationally, have my information stored in a system and am constantly monitored by police patrols to insure I am acting properly on the roads. The car I am driving has strict regulations and safety tests that it must pass in order to be sold to me.

Yet with guns there is a fraction of this type of oversight for something thats main purpose is to kill. That just utterly absurd.

This is why I'm not going to continue. I've properly used guns for most of my life, and I've never, not even once, fired it at another person. Ever. Period.

There's just no rational discussion on this subject to be had with you.

Thats fine. That doesnt erase the fact that a guns primary purpose and use is to kill. While a cars is not.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Nope. You could probably make that argument for the majority of handguns

I am.

I mean, it'd be kind of disingenuous to have entered into and then continued this conversation with the idea that we're discussing hunting in any way, shape, or form. It's fairly obvious that game hunting is not at all a topic of conversation here following the shooting that prompted this thread, nor is it pertinent to that conversation.

Especially considering the story I relayed that sparked this particular tangent, which was also obviously not about hunting.

I mean, if you're gonna try to pivot to game hunting as a means to somehow undercut the basic point of what I'm saying and why I'm saying it, I'd suggest that's wasted effort, as it's obviously not what anyone here is trying to talk about.

We're talking about the manufacture, marketing, and sale of weapons intended to be fired at other human beings, the intent by which a very, very large number of firearms are manufactured and used.

The fact you and RailGUN are determined to try and cast the basic factual statements about gun usage as "hyperbolic" is again, part of the problem when conversations about reducing gun usage come up, because we can't even be honest about what these things are, what they do, and why we purchase them. Puncturing that pillow-soft shield of euphemism so offends your sensibilities that the conversation is broken off or derailed to subjects like game hunting despite the obviousness of why we're even having the conversation in the first place.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He's trying to argue that Sandy Hook was staged and that there is enough evidence of it being staged due to conspiracy theorists saying that Sandy Hook was staged. However, he also knows that stating that outright is pretty disgusting, so he mentions it in as offhandedly a method as he can to try and open up casual thread browsers to the conspiracy theory.

It's a common way of spreading bullshit, doesn't matter if the person they're speaking to directly doesn't believe it as long as they can reel in at least one random reader into their delusions.

Yeah that was pretty much the vibe I was getting too.

 

[railGUN]

The OVERWHELMING purpose of a gun - and its primary function - is to kill things. That is not the same with cars.

Furthermore with cars I have to be insured, tested both academically and operationally, have my information stored in a system and am constantly monitored by police patrols to insure I am acting properly on the roads. The car I am driving has strict regulations and safety tests that it must pass in order to be sold to me.

Yet with guns there is a fraction of this type of oversight for something thats main purpose is to kill. That just utterly absurd.


Thats fine. That doesnt erase the fact that a guns primary purpose and use is to kill. While a cars is not.

Holy shit I know what a car is used for. I know what guns are used for. Guns are used to shoot bullets. What you shoot at is entirely on the person pulling the trigger. Fuck this is pedantic.

Bobby, your story was great, real eye opening... but factually incorrect in saying that you can't be a responsible gun owner without knowing how to kill people.

 

[Dryk]

Thats fine. That doesnt erase the fact that a guns primary purpose and use is to kill. While a cars is not.

It's probably worthwhile to make the description all-encompassing. A properly used gun's function to to propel a bullet into an object of your choosing. That object does not have to be alive, but the entire point of learning how to use a gun safely is being able to make sure that that bullet hits the object you want and nothing else. Missing your target is unsafe, but using your knowledge about how to hit your target is only as safe as your choice of target.

That's different from a car because the point of learning how to use a car safely is not to hit anything at all.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Bobby, your story was great, real eye opening... but factually incorrect in saying that you can't be a responsible gun owner without knowing how to kill people.

That's not factually incorrect.

Do you not know how to kill a person with the weapon you have? Were you not taught how to properly operate that weapon?

How do you get from "I know nothing about guns" to "I'm a licensed owner fully trained in the safe operation of this weapon" without learning where to aim and how to fire without hitting anyone else?

This is part of the responsibility in owning a gun. It's probably the biggest responsibility. How can you argue against that basic fact? The biggest responsibility in owning a gun is knowing and respecting the fact it is a deadly weapon when used properly, and even MORE deadly when used improperly.

 

[Jonm1010]

Holy shit I know what a car is used for. I know what guns are used for. Guns are used to shoot bullets. What you shoot at is entirely on the person pulling the trigger. Fuck this is pedantic.

Bobby, your story was great, real eye opening... but factually incorrect in saying that you can't be a responsible gun owner without knowing how to kill people.

Most guns and ammunition are designed with the purpose of killing. You can use them for target practice but that doesnt erase that their primary use, design and function is for killing. You can use it for other purposes but its main purpose is as a tool used for project lethal force.

The comparison sucks dude. Just drop it.

 

[railGUN]

How do you get from "I know nothing about guns" to "I'm a licensed owner fully trained in the safe operation of this weapon" without learning where to aim and how to fire without hitting anyone else?

Exactly?

My original point was that gun safety and gun defence are not the same. You don't need to take gun defence courses to be a responsible gun owner, you need gun safety. But you're still convinced that guns are only to kill people, so why am I bothering?

 

[The Artisan]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at by mentioning that there are people who believe that Sandy Hook was staged.

By the way, did you know that many people believe 9/11 was a hoax? Not saying I believe that, just wanted to put that detail out.

Someone earlier said that if the tragedy of sandy hook was not enough to make right wingers have a change of heart in this country, then nothing will. Although, the more I think about it, the more I realize that scene with this hoax debate, he's kinda right.

Ok? Good for you?

Still doesn't change anything about the fact that Sandy Hook truthers being an actual thing is just extra proof that no rational gun control debate will ever happen.

Honestly what are you even arguing?

I think I may take back what I was trying to say.

I assume you mean anti gun control.
If so I wouldn't be surprised if the two groups have a very large intersection.

Depends who you think that other group is.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Exactly?

Why are you bothering, then.

 

[railGUN]

The comparison sucks dude. Just drop it.

Go back and read what I wrote, or here, let me re-quote it for you:

Guns are not just for killing people, just like cars are not just for killing people. This hyperbole isn't necessary.

 

[HariKari]

I mean, if you're gonna try to pivot to game hunting as a means to somehow undercut the basic point of what I'm saying and why I'm saying it, I'd suggest that's wasted effort, as it's obviously not what anyone here is trying to talk about.

You tried to make blanket statements and got called out on it. If you want to continue the "sole purpose of a gun is to kill human beings" angle, there isn't really much to talk about, because that's clearly bullshit.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

You tried to make blanket statements and got called out on it.

No, man. That's not what happened.

It's not like I'm going back and re-editing posts to some extensive degree. People can follow along and see what I said, and see you guys quoting it. There's no blanket statements there. You rolled in with a needle and an x-acto knife and tried to find hairs to split in the hopes it'd wedge and crack some of the points being made, and when that didn't work, you rolled to "hunting" as if that was a thing anyone was talking about. But it wasn't, and it still isn't.

We're talking about gun violence, not 5 point bucks and duck calls. We're talking about the weapons that perpetrate that gun violence, and specifically about the story of a very responsible gun owner carefully teaching his child one summer how to also be a very responsible gun owner.

And how that responsible gun user realized later that at the very core of that responsibility was the fact that he was taught, as a summer bonding recreational activity, how to kill another person.

And that's how normalized gun violence is in America.

Even pointing out that basic fact can get people so shook that they have to try to fight that reality, or at least cover it up a little with euphemisms and code words to make it seem more palatable.

 

[The Artisan]

Being a responsible gun owner means practicing proper gun safety. Things like locking up your gun, having trigger locks, storing ammo in a separate location, properly transporting it, etc. It doesn't mean learning how to shoot center mass (or why).

Guns are not just for killing people, just like cars are not just for killing people. This hyperbole isn't necessary.

strange analogy there. Cars are vehicles. They are used as a method of transportation. They're not supposed to be used for killing at all, unless I guess, it is a maniac.

Guns, on the other hand, are weapons. Maybe their only purpose isn't for killing, but practically every purpose it serves is to inflict a damage of some sort, whether it is justified or not.

 

[Jonm1010]

Go back and read what I wrote, or here, let me re-quote it for you:

But your continuing to ignore the major distinction. The primary purpose of a gun is to deliver lethal force and kill. The primary purpose of a car is not. Both can be used in other ways but their primary purpose is not the same.

So the comparison is a bad one because it ignores the primary purpose of each device in order to make the comparison work.

 

[Tornado Condor]

But there is no way for you to teach someone else how to operate a gun without teaching them how to correctly, accurately, aim it at another human being and fire a bullet into them.

This is not hyperbole.

Really? I've taught my friends how to shoot at steel targets but never at human beings. It's what you do with the knowledge you learn that matters.

And please, for your own safety, never grab a gun.

 

[Herbs]

Oh goodie. We are at the cars are like guns fallacy. What a petty and irrational train of thought.

 

[Poltergust]

Oh goodie. We are at the cars are like guns fallacy. What a petty and irrational train of thought.

Yet if you take that to its logical conclusion, that would mean that guns should deserve the same amount of scrutiny that cars do when it comes to licenses, registration, testing, etc.

And yet people are opposed to that.

 

[tkscz]

Oh goodie. We are at the cars are like guns fallacy. What a petty and irrational train of thought.

How so? True, cars and guns are made for different purposes, but both can be used as weapons. Are their better analogies? Sure (not sure why people don't use something like swords or bats as a better analogy), but the point is clear, if you taught someone how to handle a gun correctly, then it can pose no danger. But a car in the hand of a true maniac, is just as dangerous as a gun (don't see too many people outrunning a car going 50 MPH).

 

[Piggus]

strange analogy there. Cars are vehicles. They are used as a method of transportation. They're not supposed to be used for killing at all, unless I guess, it is a maniac.

Guns, on the other hand, are weapons. Maybe their only purpose isn't for killing, but practically every purpose it serves is to inflict a damage of some sort, whether it is justified or not.

You can say the same thing about swords and bows. Yet their purpose for the overwhelming majority of people who own them, like guns, is for peaceful sporting/hobby, not murder.

The "a gun's only purpose is for killing people" argument is bullshit. Its purpose is what you make of it, not JUST what it was originally invented for (this doesn't just apply to guns.) Do you think that guns are supposed to be used for killing as opposed to cars? Because I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to use them that way unless it's part of your job or you have to defend your life.

A lot of guns (including some semi-automatic handgun models) are specifically designed for target shooting or hunting. How would you deal with those?

 

[Nocebo]

Go back and read what I wrote, or here, let me re-quote it for you:

Maybe you are bad at English? Saying "not just for killing" implies that they are for killing people, but that it is not their only purpose. It implies there is another purpose besides killing.

Essentially you're saying cars are for killing people but also other things, just like guns. Which makes no sense.

You can say the same thing about swords and bows. Yet their purpose for the overwhelming majority of people who own them, like guns, is for peaceful sporting/hobby, not murder.

The "a gun's only purpose is for killing people" argument is bullshit. Its purpose is what you make of it, not JUST what it was originally invented for (this doesn't just apply to guns.) Do you think that guns are supposed to be used for killing as opposed to cars? Because I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to use them that way unless it's part of your job or you have to defend your life.

Would you say the same about nuclear missiles, grenades and other explosives? If no, what is the difference between the two you base your opinion on?

 

[SolicitorPirate]

So I don't really care about gun/car comparisons or semantic arguments about the purpose of a gun. I will say this however; ever since Australia enacted strict gun control (despite massive public outrage), we haven't had a mass shooting incident since. It's pretty nice.

Edit: Just realized we actually have had one mass shooting incident since gun control. In 2014, a man killed four members of his family and then himself. One incident, though tragic, is still a much better rate than the numbers the US posts.

 

[Jonm1010]

How so? True, cars and guns are made for different purposes, but both can be used as weapons. Are their better analogies? Sure (not sure why people don't use something like swords or bats as a better analogy), but the point is clear, if you taught someone how to handle a gun correctly, then it can pose no danger. But a car in the hand of a true maniac, is just as dangerous as a gun (don't see too many people outrunning a car going 50 MPH).

Funny how with a car - a device that's primary purpose isn't to kill - has more regulation, monitoring and requirements for access then the tool that you agree is primarily designed to kill.

I'm not allowed to self teach myself to handle a car and then possess and operate it at my leisure. No, I have to go through extensive training and regulatory hurdles to use it functionally.

I have to study and pass a written and operational test, insure myself, maintain a proper criminal record and become licensed and registered. From there I am heavily monitored in terms of my activity using that car through rules and policing.

Even the cars themselves are subject to strict safety requirements and monitoring.

But with the tool that's primary purpose is to kill? I can go to a gun show tomorrow and have a gun and use it in no time. Agree to a transaction with a private individual and I will never have to register or prove my competency to use it. Just take it home and start using it.

 

[Piggus]

Would you say the same about missiles, grenades and other explosives? If no, what is the difference between the two you base your opinion on?

No. The difference is those are considered destructive devices by the ATF and don't have any real sporting purpose.

 

[Milchjon]

People who use the cars analogy should have any and all guns taken away immediately, cause they have a very, very screwed up idea of what guns are.

 

[Jonm1010]

No. The difference is those are considered destructive devices by the ATF and don't have any real sporting purpose.

Guns and grenades primary design and use is for delivering lethal force. The fact some use it for other means more then others is irrelevant. It doesn't take away the primary function of the weapons.

 

[pringles]

A lot of guns (including some semi-automatic handgun models) are specifically designed for target shooting or hunting. How would you deal with those?

A lot of countries have no trouble with these. Just require hunting license, background check etc. Probably be more strict about anything that is semi-automatic or doesn't have a clear recreational use.

Swords/bows/cars are such poor comparables to guns, and especially rapid-fire guns. Swords require close proximity and are hard to conceal. You can run away from a sword. Bows are slow, harder to use and harder to conceal. Cars are transportation. The vast majority of car-related deaths are nothing but accidents. You may as well compare guns to stairs. Both kill people.

 

[Moobabe]

Funny how with a car - a device that's primary purpose isn't to kill - has more regulation, monitoring and requirements for access then the tool that you agree is primarily designed to kill.

I'm not allowed to self teach myself to handle a car and then possess and operate it at my leisure. No, I have to go through extensive training and regulatory hurdles to use it functionally.

I have to study and pass a written and operational test, insure myself, maintain a proper criminal record and become licensed and registered. From there I am heavily monitored in terms of my activity using that car through rules and policing.

Even the cars themselves are subject to strict safety requirements and monitoring.

But with the tool that's primary purpose is to kill? I can go to a gun show tomorrow and have a gun and use it in no time. Agree to a transaction with a private individual and I will never have to register or prove my competency to use it. Just take it home and start using it.

Amazing that a post like this is being overlooked by some people here. By "amazing" I mean "not at all surprising."

 

[Piggus]

Guns and grenades primary design and use is for delivering lethal force. The fact some use it for other means more then others is irrelevant. It doesn't take away the primary function of the weapons.

Well shit, I better write a letter to the ATF requesting that they allow me to pick up a few grenades on my next trip to Wal-Mart. I mean what's the difference?

A lot of countries have no trouble with these. Just require hunting license, background check etc. Probably be more strict about anything that is semi-automatic or doesn't have a clear recreational use.

Swords/bows/cars are such poor comparables to guns, and especially rapid-fire guns. Swords require close proximity and are hard to conceal. You can run away from a sword. Bows are slow, harder to use and harder to conceal. Cars are transportation. The vast majority of car-related deaths are nothing but accidents. You may as well compare guns to stairs. Both kill people.

I agree with you. My point when comparing to other weapons was that how the vast majority of people who use them is completely different from their original "purpose" as tools for killing.

 

[Dicktatorship]

There's a lot to sort through here so forgive me if it's been brought up lately but have the motives been discussed here or is this thread all about gun control?

The shooter was lining up people and asking if they were Christian,” Bodhi Looney posted. “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.

No words for this. Goddamn it.

Not Religious, Not Religious, but Spiritual,” he answered about himself on the site. As for a partner, he said “Pagan, Wiccan, Not Religious, but Spiritual” were qualities he desired.

I'm actually pretty surprised at what he identifies as. I'm not too familiar with Pagan or Wiccan beliefs or how its followers generally conduct themselves so I can't say much about this. But why would he hate christians so much? Especially when it has borrowed much from Paganism

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-community-college-gunman-sympathized-with-va-tv-shooter-shared-newtown-school-shooting-documentary-062320159.html.

 

[neorej]

.

 

[Jonm1010]

Well shit, I better write a letter to the ATF requesting that they allow me to pick up a few grenades on my next trip to Wal-Mart. I mean what's the difference?

In terms of their primary function? Not much. In terms of their lethality and damage output, plenty. Depending on the grenades or guns we are comparing.

The bigger question that should be asked is why aren't guns more heavily regulated like greandes....Or like cars. Those things you all keep saying can be used to kill like guns do.

I mean you own argument here seems to admit that the 2nd amendment isn't a panacea. So why shouldn't robust monitoring and regulation be placed on guns similar to what we have done with more lethal tools of death like gremades or nukes?

 

[besada]

Now that there's another thread for it, let's move the serious gun control debate to there, so we can follow the news in here. Thanks.

 

[Ganhyun]

There's a lot to sort through here so forgive me if it's been brought up lately but have the motives been discussed here or is this thread all about gun control?



No words for this. Goddamn it.



I'm actually pretty surprised at what he identifies as. I'm not too familiar with Pagan or Wiccan beliefs or how its followers generally conduct themselves so I can't say much about this. But why would he hate christians so much? Especially when it has borrowed much from Paganism

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-community-college-gunman-sympathized-with-va-tv-shooter-shared-newtown-school-shooting-documentary-062320159.html.

Some people hate ANY type of religion if it isn't their religion/belief.

 

[Rockman Wright]

.

 

[Bleepey]

The "niceguys"TM are the ones that go on shooting sprees.

Not sure why masculinity is so often tied to sexual prowess for dudes. I've never looked at a man that fucked a bunch of girls and thought, WOW WHAT A MAN. I don't know too many chicks that think that either. Must be a peer pressure thing from other dudes, which is silly.

Probably because one of the first things people (guys and girls) do when call in someone a loser is to say "oh you're mad cos you can get a girl"

 

[Rockman Wright]

why is it so hard for a lot of people to accept gun controls? Car are not designed for killing people yet it's way more regulated than guns, why is that? Having the same regulation would maybe not solve the immediate problem, but at least it would be a step in the good direction

Now that there's another thread for it, let's move the serious gun control debate to there, so we can follow the news in here. Thanks.

whoops, my bad, will do just that

 

[Ganhyun]

why is it so hard for a lot of people to accept gun controls? Car are not designed for killing people yet it's way more regulated than guns, why is that? Having the same regulation would maybe not solve the immediate problem, but at least it would be a step in the good direction

I recommend following Besada's advice and taking that to the gun control thread my man.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

didn't see the post by besada will move over there.

 

[Surface of Me]

Is it true CNN was reporting about the wrong guy being the shooter for a bit?

 

[ICKE]

A real practicing Christian does not deny their faith under any circumstance.

Peter denied Jesus three times in the bible, it is a rather relevant part of their faith. I have nothing but admiration for those people who stood firm.

 

[Dicktatorship]

Peter denied Jesus three times in the bible, it is a rather relevant part of their faith. I have nothing but admiration for those people who stood firm.

God I don't if I could do it I really don't. I've struggled with my faith for so long, and to see my brothers and sisters in Christ gunned down right next to me as the barrel shifted to me? I don't blame anyone.

EDIT: I'm at a loss for words regarding those who stood their ground and declared their faith. What they did took so much..... God bless them

 

[ReadingRambo]

God I don't if I could do it I really don't. I've struggled with my faith for so long, and to see my brothers and sisters in Christ gunned down right next to me as the barrel shifted to me? I don't blame anyone.

EDIT: I'm at a loss for words regarding those who stood their ground and declared their faith. What they did took so much..... God bless them

Do you think God would blame someone who temporarily renounced their faith to avoid a bullet to the head? Is he that petty?

 

[Dicktatorship]

Do you think God would blame someone who temporarily renounced their faith to avoid a bullet to the head? Is he that petty?

I don't claim to know what God would do. I'm no prophet. But the God I worship is a merciful one whose love for us is endless and understands us, flaws and all, completely.

 

[Chariot]

Do you think God would blame someone who temporarily renounced their faith to avoid a bullet to the head? Is he that petty?

All-loving. Also Jesus died already for our sins. So, not in theory, but I can understand, it's a matter of principle for some people.

 

[Lonely1]

Do you think God would blame someone who temporarily renounced their faith to avoid a bullet to the head? Is he that petty?

Well, tradition states that he pardoned Peter. But martyrdom is considered one of the holiest proofs of faith by the catholic church and it often separates the saints from the regular worshipers.

Quo vadis?

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Is it true most of the murder victims were female?

I saw that somewhere but assumed it could be disinformation.

 

[Ayt]

Oh goodie. We are at the cars are like guns fallacy. What a petty and irrational train of thought.

I sleep with my car under my pillow for safety.

Now that there's another thread for it, let's move the serious gun control debate to there, so we can follow the news in here. Thanks.

Sorry. Hadn't seen this before responding to the post from the previous page.

 

[shoreu]

Murder rates don't match up with the rate of gun ownership though.

Just leave. You sound ignorant and you refuse to answer a simple question. I guess the NRA would love someone like you working from them. Do you even know what your trying to get at?