• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A gun is a tool...

Wiggen said:
You anti-tax libertarians and your Republican allies have assured that there aren't nearly enough facilities or mental health care professionals availiable. Funding mental health programs isn't nearly sexy enough.
Click to expand...
Everyone is guilty in that. Liberal laws also make commission harder with a harder standard of proof. Instead of blaming others let's figure out how to fix it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I wonder how many hammer or wrench based killings it would take to get them banned as well.
Click to expand...

well if the far left and their pimps in congress believed that most tool owners were conservatives or republicans, the answer would be VERY SOON
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Cars are heavily regulated to make them safer for everyone. From other drivers, the driver, the passengers, and pedestrians. To drive a car (Legally) it has to be registared and the driver has to be licensed (and pass an operators test.

Where a car is operated and how it is operated is also controlled. The improper use of a car can result in fines, loss of the abilty to legal use it, and or loss of the vehicle.

Cars which are unsafe are not allowed to operate (think of a car with bad or no brakes)

Last but not least

The primary function of a car is to transport people or goods over a distance. The primary function of a gun is to provide a ranged means to kill something. If cars are regulated, why not guns
Click to expand...

1) unsafe guns are few and far between

2) the USE of a weapon is highly regulated

3) weapons that do not pass safety tests cannot be legally sold-guns have "proof marks" on the barrels establishing that they have been tested

4) the primary function of a gun is to allow the user to deliver a bullet to the target as designated by the shooter.

5) guns are more heavily regulated than cars. there are licenses required of gun makers, gun wholesalers and gun retailers. I have never had a background check done of me when I buy a car. and my driver's license is good in every part of the USA

so your claim is specious
 
In the midst of all the gun debate I think this this slogan (TV Show) stands out "Have Gun Will Travel". In those good old days travelling around can be a risk coz you could get killed by indians, bandits etc. If you had a gun you will feel safe.
 
Wiggen said:
A gun is not a tool. It's a weapon. I'm willing to take my chances with crazy people armed with knives, if the alternative is a semi-automatic assault rifle.
Click to expand...

No, a gun is a tool. Yes, it can be used a weapon to hurt or kill someone, but so can many other things. For example knives, cars, hammers, a pen, or even a fork. It all comes down to the person behind the tool.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I wonder how many hammer or wrench based killings it would take to get them banned as well.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked no hammers nor wrenches (nor knives, nor swords) were ever implicated in any mass killings. The gun is more than a tool; it is a killing machine. It allows the taking of another life without the one on one violence that would be required to kill with any of these other instruments. Using this machine, the killer can perform his task applying less skill than the other means and do so with greater personal safety. Simply put, the gun makes killing much easier than almost all other "tools".
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Last time I checked no hammers nor wrenches (nor knives, nor swords) were ever implicated in any mass killings. The gun is more than a tool; it is a killing machine. It allows the taking of another life without the one on one violence that would be required to kill with any of these other instruments. Using this machine, the killer can perform his task applying less skill than the other means and do so with greater personal safety. Simply put, the gun makes killing much easier than almost all other "tools".
Click to expand...


you'd be wrong

years ago Macias, a West AFrican dictator, was implicated in thousands of murders committed by his goon squads who used hammers. when asked about the atrocities, this turd claimed "bullets are expensive"


killing machine. I can see you trembling when you say that.

bombs are much easier.
 
What people are missing out of - normally people who've never even held a gun in their hand - is the fact that a gun is not something you use more easily to murder than let's say an axe or a knife. When I say easily I'm talking about the mental barrier for pulling the trigger on someone. When you hold a gun in your hands you know what it is capable of, and you will treat it accordingly. A knife, on the other hand, is held by most people in the world on a daily basis. It's a normalized weapon that everyone has access to, and people do not respect it the same way they respect a gun. Therefore, a knife is actually a potentially more dangerous weapon, no matter if it's legal to carry one or not.

The reason most school-shootings and the likes are commited by the use of gun-fire is the fact that it's more effective, just like the weapon you should use in war is a rifle or a machine-gun. But still, there is a psychological barrier to using a gun on someone that is far more stronger than when handling a knife. Which means, you need to be whacko to cross that border, and all the gun does is to increase the efficiency of the act. You can not blame a tool for being too efficient, but you can blame a human being for using it to his advantage.
 
I do not support more gun bans, etc., but this whole "a gun is just a tool" mantra being spouted by people who are nothing but tools themselves is just a bunch of claptrap. The purpose and original intent and design of guns was/is to kill. Period. Guns were not invented with the goal of being a cool target practice toy, with killing only being a later alternative use. No. And any attempt to claim such or similar will simply out the said claimant as a inarticulate moron.

The fact that your gun has never been fired at anyone (yet), or that you have only partaken in target practice (so far), doesn't change that fact. Most of the people spewing forth these ridiculous defenses have proudly claimed in other threads that they would be more than willing to kill someone who infringed on them and/or their families with these so-called "tools", if necessary. Hence, spin denied.

The facts of gun control laws being ineffective and a waste of time stand on their own merits quite nicely. They don't need idiotic statements like this. It just makes you look foolish and unable to legitimately defend your point-of-view.
 
It makes no difference whether a gun was designed to kill or not; the gun itself can do no more than is mechanically allowed which is to fire a projectile. Nobody ever said that this tool was incapable of killing; only that it would require human intervention to do so. The fact that some would use a gun to "kill someone who infringed on them and/or their families with these so-called tools" does not change the fact that that is exactly what it is; a tool.
 
There is an unease spreading across America. Folks see our culture-shattering demographic
changes. They see a government that cannot protect it's citizens from the crimes committed
by illegal aliens. The smell of impending chaos is in the air.

Anyone who is not armed is being neglectful of their and their families safety. Get training at
local gun clubs and indoor ranges.
 
It's not clear that guns cause violence, but it's absolutely clear that they change the outcome. You walk into a school with a hammer or a knife and you are already going to limit yourself on the kind of damage you could inflict.
 
Higgins86 said:
It's not clear that guns cause violence, but it's absolutely clear that they change the outcome. You walk into a school with a hammer or a knife and you are already going to limit yourself on the kind of damage you could inflict.
Click to expand...

and I say a big so what? bombs have killed more people at a time than any active shooter-some Hispanic who was upset he was tossed out of a different hispanic group's nightclub in NY got a gallon of gas and killed over 60 people a while back.
 
TurtleDude said:
and I say a big so what? bombs have killed more people at a time than any active shooter-some Hispanic who was upset he was tossed out of a different hispanic group's nightclub in NY got a gallon of gas and killed over 60 people a while back.
Click to expand...

And how many cases like the one you mentioned have we had over the past twenty years?

How does the number of those incidents compare to the number of mass gun killings?
 
haymarket said:
And how many cases like the one you mentioned have we had over the past twenty years?

How does the number of those incidents compare to the number of mass gun killings?
Click to expand...

what relevance does that have? why don't you come out and tell us what laws you think would have prevented the Newtown massacre
 
TurtleDude said:
what relevance does that have? why don't you come out and tell us what laws you think would have prevented the Newtown massacre
Click to expand...

So you are admitting that your mention of these other random incidents has no relevance? I agree.

I have repeatedly stated that taking all things into consideration, there is no solution to this problem.
 
haymarket said:
So you are admitting that your mention of these other random incidents has no relevance? I agree.

I have repeatedly stated that taking all things into consideration, there is no solution to this problem.
Click to expand...


so you don't think if that principal and her staff were armed that would have made a difference?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you don't think if that principal and her staff were armed that would have made a difference?
Click to expand...

Yes, in one of two ways. 1) Had it been known by the perp that armed resistance would be faced then a different method of "revenge" would likely have been chosen, or 2) had it not been known by the perp that armed resistance would be faced there is a better than even chance that lives could have been saved by your scenario.
 
Goshin said:
Taking the tool away isn't practical. There are far too many of them available for this to be a workable solution.

Better to deal with crazies in a more effective fashion, and improve school security.
Click to expand...

Do both...to begin with. When your society becomes normal (i.e. safer for children) you can calm down and carry on.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It seems the lack of commission to mental facilities and shortened prison sentences for violent offenders is the most prevalent area of concern among many in the professional psychological and criminological fields.
Click to expand...

The same people who generally oppose gun control are the same people putting criminals back on the streets soonest.
 
joko104 said:
The same people who generally oppose gun control are the same people putting criminals back on the streets soonest.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I am in favor of laws that automatically establish more time for a crime committed with a weapon, violent crimes always should have a higher punishment, as well as sexual crimes. Putting someone convicted of a robbery or rape back on the street too soon almost guarantees they'll repeat their crimes, often with a worse result.
 
joko104 said:
The same people who generally oppose gun control are the same people putting criminals back on the streets soonest.
Click to expand...


UH I think you mispoke

those who oppose GUNS are the ones generally putting criminals back on the street ASAP
 
TurtleDude said:
so you don't think if that principal and her staff were armed that would have made a difference?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that an armed professional within that building would have made a difference. The question then becomes who should fulfill that role.

I had lunch last week with about a dozen teachers that I had taught with and all are now retired. When the subject came up of arming the school staff NOT ONE of the people expressed any support for it. Not a single one. Those who did speak wanted nothing to do with the idea. They are teachers - not security persons. Two of the people there were former school principals and one joked that he never wanted to see guns in the hands of teachers and it would be nightmare in terms of what could go wrong.

I suspect - and I suspect very strongly - that this idea of arming staff comes from the far right and only has support there. It does not originate from teachers themselves nor the people who run our schools for whom it is potential nightmare on several fronts.

Wayne LaPierre is right on this score. We protect all sorts of things in our society with armed professionals and we should do the same with our school kids. If I go downtown to a baseball or football game, there are hundreds of armed Detroit police officers everywhere for a mile surrounding the parks and that includes inside the park also.

La Pierre is right about this - don't our kids deserve the same professional protection?
 
TurtleDude said:
and I say a big so what? bombs have killed more people at a time than any active shooter-some Hispanic who was upset he was tossed out of a different hispanic group's nightclub in NY got a gallon of gas and killed over 60 people a while back.
Click to expand...

So Turtle I know your very pro Gun and I also know that you are very responsible with guns and teach the same. You are also a proud American and I have to ask you do you honestly think placing armed guards at schools is a reasonable response for a free and democratic country like the US? Would you rather not see a restrictions on weapons which are not needed for self defence or would you prefer to have you grandkids go to school in something from a Orwell novel?
 
Higgins86 said:
So Turtle I know your very pro Gun and I also know that you are very responsible with guns and teach the same. You are also a proud American and I have to ask you do you honestly think placing armed guards at schools is a reasonable response for a free and democratic country like the US? Would you rather not see a restrictions on weapons which are not needed for self defence or would you prefer to have you grandkids go to school in something from a Orwell novel?
Click to expand...
I will answer it. Prior restraint is unconstitutional, so banning weapons in an arbitrary fashion is not on the table at any time, armed guards in schools are not necessarily going to accomplish anything, I think the best compromise would be to strip the restrictions on all carry, but rather allow people with a CCW permit to carry on campus. Obviously this wouldn't be the children but rather possibly some administrations, support staff, or educators. Note that these people would not be required to license and carry but just that they would be allowed to do so if they have the permits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom