magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Problem is still people.I realize that, but people make better decisions when they have time to think...these weapons make life/death a split second decision. They also make the prospect of killing someone "accidentally" an all too common problem.http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2012/03/14/3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-kills-himself-at-tacoma-gas-station/http://www.king5.com/news/local/Child-reportedly-hurt-in-Stanwood-shooting-142211265.htmlhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/seattle-boy-who-accidentally-shot-third-grade-classmate-charged-judge-to-decide-whether-case-proceeds/ Edited August 9, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 so you've got 1 in georgia as a self defense...how many people have been shot/killed by guns today in georgia? around 600 murders a year, thats 2 to 1 on average... no?So basically what you are saying is because criminals still kill people with guns no one should be allowed to defend themselves with them? Sounds like the politicians answer to issues. "We must stop fights in schools so both parties in a school fight are expelled. Doesn't matter who started it." I bet you were one of the kinds who played sports where even the losers got trophies. Sorry no trophies for losers in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I realize that, but people make better decisions when they have time to think...these weapons make life/death a split second decision. They also make the prospect of killing someone "accidentally" an all too common problem.http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2012/03/14/3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-kills-himself-at-tacoma-gas-station/http://www.king5.com/news/local/Child-reportedly-hurt-in-Stanwood-shooting-142211265.htmlhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/seattle-boy-who-accidentally-shot-third-grade-classmate-charged-judge-to-decide-whether-case-proceeds/Sometimes that split second life/death outcome is in the favor of the 'good guy'.No such thing as an accident. Those examples are negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) So basically what you are saying is because criminals still kill people with guns no one should be allowed to defend themselves with them?this is where everyone is misconstruing my position... I'm not suggesting that you not be allowed to own your weapon... I'm suggesting society would do better if we didn't carry weapons that make death such a quick conclusion, we might have a more peaceful society.and more than "criminals" kill people with guns... Look at the hardened criminals in my first 2 links... OMSF they should be jailed immediately... Edited August 9, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 Sometimes that split second life/death outcome is in the favor of the 'good guy'.No such thing as an accident. Those examples are negligence.so in those examples, who was the "good guy", and who was the "bad guy"?The stringent black and white world some of you must live in to perpetuate this whole "good guy/ bad guy" theme... is there no gray area? Are there no people that commit a crime for a good reason? Are there no people who obey the law but undermine morality?Welcome to Judge Dredd's world I guess.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 so in those examples, who was the "good guy", and who was the "bad guy"?There is no 'good guy' in those examples, as no one was threatening lethal force. The 'bad guy' here would be the negligent gun owners.Real life has no reset/new game button. Like I said earlier, anyone who is actively causing damage/death to either myself, a loved-one or someone otherwise unable to adequately defend themselves is a 'bad guy'--it's that easy. Don't want to be construed as a bad guy, don't demonstrate lethal force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 So the gun owner "actively" caused damage to someone else by leaving the gun in the car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 So the gun owner "actively" caused damage to someone else by leaving the gun in the car?Apples and oranges here in your thought process. Someone strung-out on PCP beating your sister in the head with a section of pipe because she wouldn't give him money is actively causing damage.Leaving a loaded, unsecured firearm unattended with children is negligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Apples and oranges here in your thought process. Someone strung-out on PCP beating your sister in the head with a section of pipe because she wouldn't give him money is actively causing damage.Leaving a loaded, unsecured firearm unattended with children is negligent.That's my whole point...If you left a baseball bat in the car, or an axe for example (since some people think they are analogous), that kid might have gotten a headache, or cut, but probably wouldn't have ended up punching a giant dealy hole through themselves or their siblings...It takes zero understanding, and very little effort to exert deadly force. That's the problem... if guns were smarter, could only be handled and fired by adults or only the registered owner perhaps... I would be behind them more. The sheer fact that there is a ton of power with no discretion unleashed simply by less than an inch of movement...regardless of intention... regardless of understanding...IMO it's just irresponsible to build and distribute weapons like that. We're better than this.I mean, as an engineer, I can't rightfully design a saw fixture without a bunch of light curtains and guards because the people who use them might hurt themselves. You want that population to have access to guns? seriously? Edited August 9, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Apples and oranges here in your thought process. Someone strung-out on PCP beating your sister in the head with a section of pipe because she wouldn't give him money is actively causing damage.Leaving a loaded, unsecured firearm unattended with children is negligent.That difference will be utterly lost on Magz (who was supposed to be done with this thread, but as I predicted is mentally incapable of abandoning his psychosis).He FEELS that guns (being designed only to kill, you see) cause harm, or influence someone holding one to commit harm, so even legitimate self-defense is just a precursor to you using the gun recklessly or with malice. Using it as a tool, even justly and in your own defense is not going to register with him, because that hunk of metal is imbued with evil spirits.That gun wasn't left there negligently, it caused its owner to abandon it knowing its destructive power will be used for killing. It, like the Ring of Sauron, knows what it wants you see. Negligence, to Magz, is you even having a gun. There is no responsible...he's stated so himself. If you own it, you contribute to the gun culture and are culpable in all harm that all guns cause.Watch and see. If he accepts your point, his house of cards comes crashing down. He can't, and won't, because his delusions hang upon the idea that a guns cause harm merely by being. Edited August 9, 2012 by swingset Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 That's my whole point...If you left a baseball bat in the car, or an axe for example If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle.What about your poor sister? Do you wait and see if the dude will stop beating her before she is dead, or even brain-dead? Politely ask him to stop? Elbow him? With bath salts, etc., one can break the dudes arm and he won't feel it. Who is the bad guy here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 That's my whole point...If you left a baseball bat in the car, or an axe for example (since some people think they are analogous), that kid might have gotten a headache, or cut, but probably wouldn't have ended up punching a giant dealy hole through themselves or their siblings...And how is it one iota different from leaving your car keys where a child could reach them, start the car and run someone over, or kill themselves? How about leaving a lighter around, where a fire could kill the entire family? How about access to running water and drowning themselves?How many kids play with matches and die? A lot. By drowning in an unattended pool? A lot.Feeling, instead of thinking.All comes back to guns being evil, because you fear them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 And how is it one iota different from leaving your car keys where a child could reach them, start the car and run someone over, or kill themselves? How about leaving a lighter around, where a fire could kill the entire family? How about access to running water and drowning themselves?How many kids play with matches and die? A lot. By drowning in an unattended pool? A lot.Feeling, instead of thinking.All comes back to guns being evil, because you fear them.and again, you fail to understand my point, not "evil", "designed to kill, with very little force and zero understanding"irresponsible...they don't have mind of their own, if they did, i would be more on board...if they were smart enough to only shoot people with bad intentions, I'd be all for themIf they were designed to only be shot by registered owners, I'd be more for them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 If they were designed to only be shot by registered owners, I'd be more for them...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) And how is it one iota different from leaving your car keys where a child could reach them, start the car and run someone over, or kill themselves?Are you asking what is the difference between a gun and a car? Seriously?A car is designed to transport people from place to place, not to kill people...Cars are becoming safer, and kill people less in their design. How about leaving a lighter around, where a fire could kill the entire family? Possible, but with a fire, you got some time, and fires are necessary for a LOT of things...lighters are getting safer, too (how exactly do you "put out" a gunshot wound to the head?)How about access to running water and drowning themselves?How many kids play with matches and die? A lot. By drowning in an unattended pool?water is essential to life... I'm not sure if you understand the difference between 1. a device designed to kill people 2. a device designed to transport people and 3. natural elements... Edited August 9, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_GunI'd be onboard with this... people already have biometric safes, let's make the gun biometric and cut out the middle man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) and again, you fail to understand my point, not "evil", "designed to kill, with very little force and zero understanding"And, again, anyone can turn a key and launch a 6,000lb vehicle into a crowd and kill 20 people. A child can do it. You confuse the action, the destruction, the intent with the old and meaningless origins of something. That's why you're stupid, partner. How many fucking times must you dodge the incontrovertible wall of logic here?Tim McVeigh killed 162, quite easily, with fertilizer and diesel. Are any of his victims less dead because he used that instead of a "designed to kill" gun? You are assigning evil into a gun, because you seem to make its misuse more eggregious than with a rock, or a knife, or a car or a bomb. You think that these things happen because a gun is around. Or, worse, you seem to think that without guns around they wouldn't happen.And, I'll come back to Switzerland and Israel again. Proof that an abundance of "designed to kill" weapons doesn't make for a dangerous society. While the inner cities prove that violent cultures make for violence. Negligent people make for negligence, with or without guns....and their origins or design doesn't fucking matter.For a man who hates religion, you cling to a dogmatic view on inanimate objects and will not be shaken. Just as a Christian can't abandon God. I find that hilarious, and I mock you for it.irresponsible...It's not irresponsible to own a weapon. It's irresponsible to be irresponsible with it. Logic fail, again. You're assigning malice to an object.they don't have mind of their own, if they did, i would be more on board...Yet your own statements contradict this.if they were smart enough to only shoot people with bad intentions, I'd be all for themMeaningless. If cars were designed to only let good drivers behind the wheel, you'd be for them right? Even tho that's utopian silliness? If sport bikes were only designed to go the speed limit and not to let squids ride like assholes, you'd be for them right? Again, assigning special malice to an object. Emotions. Fear.If they were designed to only be shot by registered owners, I'd be more for them...And if a registered owner is infected with the inherent evil of a gun? Uh oh. Guess you'd better re-think that. What if the gun owner is one of those Christian bigot white devils? I think you don't really mean this statement at all.Smart gun technology sucks, btw, I'd just rather trust in people to defend themselves and not murder each other. Like they do in Switzerland. See, if you have an industrious, modern and well-educated society, grown men can have assault weapons in their homes and no problems will really ever exist. Same with Israel, or Boise Idaho, or Silver City, NM or anywhere else where gun ownership is very high and crime is very low.Again, it was fun deflating your hysteria.POW! Edited August 9, 2012 by swingset Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'd be onboard with this... people already have biometric safes, let's make the gun biometric and cut out the middle man...And if you're bleeding? Might not work. If you're wearing gloves? Might not work. If you're incapacitated and your wife needs to defend herself from the man attacking you? Might not work.Wanna know why police don't use this technology? Doesn't work.Well, I suppose you'd prefer a gun that doesn't work so you're still on board with this.As a person who is afraid of guns to the point of manically arguing about it for pages and pages, you can surely find a reason to like anything that lessens a gun's effectiveness as a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 And if you're bleeding? Might not work. If you're wearing gloves? Might not work. If you're incapacitated and your wife needs to defend herself from the man attacking you? Might not work.so you're against biometric safes, too?What is their failure rate?What is the jam/misfire rate of a modern firearm?Again shitting on ideas because "It's too hard". It's a good thing people like you aren't in charge of scientific discovery, or we'd all be sitting around arguing with our abacus'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 so you're against biometric safes, too?I'm against the idea that they be mandated, or are a solution for everyone.What is their failure rate?Irrelevant. No one, in any measurable numbers, has put them to real-world use because it's such a crappy idea.What is the jam/misfire rate of a modern firearm?Unknowable. Irrelevant to the discussion.Again shitting on ideas because "It's too hard". It's a good thing people like you aren't in charge of scientific discovery, or we'd all be sitting around arguing with our abacus'...Desperate, stupid reach to try to be "right", again, you're getting lost.Stick to your original hysteria please. Guns aren't evil, spanky, they're just tools. Making them more difficult to use isn't going to protect anyone. Making bigger safes and more locks won't stop negligent people.Go ask your local police why they don't use biometric guns. It's a flawed technology, for all the reasons I mentioned...which means it's something people ought to either improve or be able to ignore.I'm all for making things better, I'm not for making things worse to make dumb people feel better.That's you, btw, the dumb person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 Stick to your original hysteria please.Go ask your local police why they don't use biometric guns.That's you, btw, the dumb person.despite what you believe my hysteria to be, I don't fear your guns... as I've said, they are irresponsible, we're better than that.I'm willing to be the police answer has more to do with the cost/benefit of upgrading or maintaining the weapon than with it's reliability, but believe what you want.I'm not dumb, I just disagree with you... I think we'd be better off without them... difference of opinion...different lifestyle....funny you keep projecting fear onto me, when I'm the one living the carefree life devoid of weapons...I've chosen to live my life as a scholar, not a warrior... you chose differently, and I'm sure that suits you fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I've chosen to live my life as a scholar, not a warriorThe scholar has spoken, and has given this thread the flying elbow of learned knowledge.Fuck, man, I'm having a hard time typing I'm laughing so hard.Thank you, seriously....I canceled cable, there was never anything this funny on it.You're a warrior alright. You're fighting logic and reason like a fucking honey badger. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaposer Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 Ok Mags, I may be the only one, but I'll give you credit that when I first started reading your posts, I thought you were an ignorant dumbass like some of these other guys. But, after the fiftieth time of you trying to make your point, I see what you are saying and can understand it. I think it was the driving/vacation thing that did it for me. The only problem is, the world isn't a disney movie, and no matter how much we could hope and pray for all guns to disappear, it ain't gonna happen. Time to move on to what to do now.I mean, as an engineer, I can't rightfully design a saw fixture without a bunch of light curtains and guards because the people who use them might hurt themselves. You want that population to have access to guns? seriously?Another very good point. You are correct. We have gone overboard with the make everything idiot proof and safe for all to use with no training. Some shit is just inherently dangerous to use. Either learn what the hell you are doing, or you might get fucked up. Guns fall in to that classification. You want to decrease the odds of your kids/nieces/nephews whatever of getting hurt by guns? Teach them about them. Let them see them, touch them, use them. Start them young. Don't make the first time they ever see or find a gun to be a scary situation. I have yet to meet a kid who didn't think the first trip to the range to be fun as hell. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaposer Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I've chosen to live my life as a scholar,I wish I would have read that before I posted my last post. It would have gone in well with my teaching kids about guns part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 this is where everyone is misconstruing my position... I'm not suggesting that you not be allowed to own your weapon... I'm suggesting society would do better if we didn't carry weapons that make death such a quick conclusion, we might have a more peaceful society.and more than "criminals" kill people with guns... Look at the hardened criminals in my first 2 links... OMSF they should be jailed immediately...We can't idiot proof the world no matter how much the soccer moms cry that we need to make the world safer for their babies. I'm with imaposser that education is the best defense, but that should be up to the parent to provide or find an instructor to do so if they are inept. I held a National Pro Marksman Award at 9-10 years old on a 50 ft range with a 22lr. That experience provided me a good basis for safe handling and use of firearms. Like Imaposser I get what your saying but it's like saying wouldn't the world be safer without nuclear bombs? Sure, yet we know the best deterrent to countries like North Korea and Iran is our own nuclear arsenal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.