Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. LoRaan Registered Senior Member

    No people kill people. They will use whatever tool they feel like from their bare hands to cars to gasoline and matches to guns to baseball bats. The problem is the people not the tools.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kwhilborn Banned Banned


    This has got to be one of the most idiotic defenses I have ever heard. They must think Americans are Morons to buy into it, but apparenty many do, so maybe it's an Intelligence/Inbreeding thing so popular in that country.

    By that logic why not license and sell grenades and rocket launchers?

    Sorry. I may need to address this to Non-Americans because of the apparent inbred stupidity that seems to allow them to use lines like "Guns don't Kill People. People do.".

    The main arguments have been to reduce the efficiency of public killing weapons. There is no need for a hunter to have a Semi-Automatic military grade weapon.

    It is true that "People do" kill people, and the more efficient the weaponry the more they can kill during any given rampage. If a weapon needed to be loaded manually for every shot, then at least the people getting slaughtered in a Movie Theatre or on the street would have an opportunity for heroism or flight.

    The stupid "Guns don't kill people. People do." as a reason why military weapons should be allowed in the public's hands makes sense only to those with IQ's equivalent to that of a normal house plant.

    I KNOW SEMI and FULL AUTOMATICS CAN BE FUN TO PLAY WITH. I HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS GOING TO RANGES FIRING 7.62mm ROUNDS. They load instantly, and are designed to kill people. That is their function.

    It is insanity to think people actually buy into lines like that.

    Americans.. (sigh)

    NOTE: if this post seems identical to the post I recently made it is because it is, and people arguing the same stupid line again shows it needs repeating.
    @ LoRaan, (last post),
    You cannot see the difference between arming lunatics with a military rifle over Bare hands or a baseball bat or even a car and arson?

    Bare hands, baseball bats, arson, and hit and runs are all possible, but a military grade rifle is much more efficient at killing than anything you just mentioned. A rifle bullet travelling at over 1500 MPH would hit the target much harder and faster than any car, bat, or bare hands. A person with any of those things cannot easily turn "the weapon" upon themselves to avoid prosecution.

    Like I said above. Your logic would allow Rocket launchers and Grenades in peoples homes. Then you could say "Its not Rocket launchers that kill people it's People who kill people" when some lunatic fires a rocket launcher into a crowded rush hour bus. MAYBE. MAYBE. MAYBE. IF THE LUNATIC WAS FORCED TO USE A BASEBALL BAT ALL THE MEN, WOMEN< AND BABIES ON THE BUS THAT JUST GOT BLOWN UP WOULD BE ALIVE.

    That is of course just off the top of my COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE does not come from inbreeding however apparently.

    What a retarded argument, "people kill people". Military weapons have no role in hunting. If you can't hit the broadside of a Moose with a manual loaded gun then go back to your computer and buy your meat like normal city folk. Such Idiocy in a science forum. I thought people here were smarter than most. Go figure.

    Another thing that needs reposting was the Death toll facts James R posted at the start of this thread.

    If you love your rifle because it is so much fun then join the Army. If you think it is fun to destroy stuff with your military rifle then imagine how it must also appeal to some lunatic.

    I have nothing against handguns and rifles. I just think civilian weapons should require manual loading. Automatic weapons are designed for killing people, not deer. You can cry otherwise all you like, but it is a fact that all of this weaponry is from Military R&D.

    This forum has turned into a discussion comparing killing effectiveness of weapons, etc., like a hobby board, yet it was meant to be somewhat anti-gun in its purpose. If these are the responses from a scientific minded crowd that is likely more educated than most in the USA I hate to see how the redneck crowds feel. Your country is doomed, and I hope they build some higher fences between our countries as we already are getting guns infiltrating from the US.

    I wonder how many mass shootings occurred in the days of muskets?

    Seriously! A musket is not automatic. If you killed a person with a musket you would be forced to manually reload and give the rest of the theatre/school/bus/post office a fighting chance to live.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Or: Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. People pull the triggers.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    I like the application of technology to address a problem. I would like to see this guy succeed as an entrepreneur.

    However I don't think the approach is adequate, and I believe weapons should be outlawed altogether by repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

    Still, it occurred to me you could take this a step further. All weapons could have an internal lock that only opens under strict conditions (thinking back on his software). One, the lock will not open unless the gun permit is active. Two, the weapon IDs the shooter by biometric data (ultimately DNA) and logs in every shot fired, with GPS coordinates, compass heading, and elevation angle, to an INTERPOL database. A possible extension this: a camera records and transmits the boresight video of everything being fired at, with audio. Three, the lock only opens when the shooter is the owner, and authorized to fire in the designated location. Four, in the event of home invasion, the lock only opens when a networked alarm system validates that an actual intrusion is in progress, the police have been notified, and have not responded within a statutory period of time. Five, the weapon transmits its position to the database at all times, with the biometric data of the person carrying it. Six, the weapon design passes a battery of tests for certification. Possession of an uncertified weapon is a first-degree felony, subject to life imprisonment. Tampering voids the certification. Possession of a weapon with an expired permit gets jail time and a fine. Seven, to pass certification, the weapon must report to the database that it is being tampered with. Failure of this mechanism, or any other violation, would notify the police to come collect the weapon. Legitimate failure goes to repair by government repair center, at owner's expense. Eight, any weapon not certified is illegal, subject to confiscation, fines and imprisonment. Nine, the permit would require that the weapon remain in the custody of the owner, no exceptions. Loss of custody would result in confiscation of the weapon and lifetime ban on permit. Ten, person taking custody of another person's weapon is subject to fines and imprisonment. Owner is similarly punished if deliberate intent to deliver the weapon were proven.

    It would be a lot cheaper and less deadly to repeal the 2nd Amendment and pass a national ban on all weapons. However, since people are so intransigent about their perception of rights, I would support the above, or something better conceived, as an interim solution.
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Maybe since guns are considered a social problem, we should do the same thing we do in schools with sex education. If we allow all the children to learn about and fire guns, even without parental permission, like we do with sex education, that should stem the problem.
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the lack of guns has NEVER stopped anyone from killing.
    the crusades, gengis khan, others too numerous to mention.
    instead of a simple hole in the head you wind up with lobbed off heads and mutilated bodies.
    in other words, murder in a gunless society will be more gruesome.
    or do you actually believe you will ban murder when you ban guns.
  10. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Do you people think before typing. It is about weapon efficiency. If a maniac starts lobbing off heads in a school, theatre, mall, post office, they may likely only kill a few. When we give Military grade automatic weapons to civilians we risk much higher death tolls when the nutcases come out.

    I agree with aqueous ID though, guns should be banned outright. If you want to mass murder with a kitchen knife you'll have to get your hands dirty.
  11. kx000 Valued Senior Member

  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    "Guns don't kill people, they just make it easier to kill people"

    Case in point on the same day of Sandy Hook Shooting, a psycho in china stab 22 kids, all survived.

    As for Aqueous ID and others desire to ban all guns, its just not going to happen in the USA any time soon, I'll put a bet not even this century! More practical measure (aka more likely to actually be implement, unlike an all out gun ban) can be taken such a universal gun registration, universal background checks, gun insurance, or even simple technocratic solutions like RFID locks on guns that will prevent children for accidentally blowing their head off with daddies handgun that he hid under his bed. Such measure would reduced the death toll at least somewhat and are much more likely to be implement over a gun ban.
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    easy for you to say because you aren't the one that has to clean up the mess.
    i do agree that AK 47s and other types of machine guns should be outlawed outside the military.
    but there is a problem.
    what about semi automatics?
    they can fire rounds as fast as you can operate the trigger.
    should they be banned too?

    in my opinion guns should NOT be banned.
    they are indeed an effective deterrent to unbridled power.

    the law WILL NOT prevent criminals from getting guns.
    you, as a law abiding citizen, will not be able to defend yourself from the person intent on raping your wife and daughter at gunpoint.
  14. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Sorry. Delete my post.
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2013
  15. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    I wonder if his invention works if the power goes out? It should have a fail-safe battery back-up to be sellable. All persons who presently own guns should have them safely secured to prevent their loss from theft. Unfortunately, such is not the case, as per the Newton massacre where the kid stole his mother's guns.
  16. kmguru Staff Member

    You may or may not have Guns in a society - my issue is that American Indians did not have superior killing power and got eaten up....many thousand years ago, Indians killed their Kshatriya (Warrior caste), since then India was taken over by Moguls, British and many other people and lost Afghanistan to Burma....

    So, have it what ever way you want....slave or master....
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i also like the application of technology, and we definitely have the technology to make a truly personalized handgun.
    i made the proposal long ago for the application of UPC codes to handguns.
    the UPC code you find on food can be tattooed on your hand with a scanner built into the gun.
    this idea came to me around the mid 80s and i made the suggestion 2 or 3 times.
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Could have it powered by piezoelectric switch or lever, no need for batteries, just the force of pushing the switch is enough to power it.

    And handgun can have a RFID receiver built in that would only de-activate the safety when it detects the correctly coded RFID somewhere on the hand of the gun user, such as in rings, wrist bands, or even implanted in the hand.

  19. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Leopold,

    I was including Semi-Automatics in my idea of no military weapons, but you are correct I did not say it.

    Actually gun bans DO prevent criminals from getting their hands on weapons. Look at crime statistics for your country vs countries where bans take place.

    I also suggested manually loaded weapons for hunting or home defense should be allowed, so if a rapist is attacking someone in home you will have at least one shot, so make it count.

    My argument is strictly aimed at Military grade weapons/anything with a magazine.
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    You know how often I have had to defend myself against my government? ZERO times, the government fears reelection not weapons (Ie the biggest thing you could do to ensure that the government doesn't go against the will of the people is abolish term limits)

    As for defending myself or my partner, that's why we have a dog and a mobile phone. 000 to the cops and say you are in fear of your life and we got a car on our doorstep in under a min
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    then why is the military industrial complex such a threat?
    if re-elections were the answer then why do we even need the military in the first place, just abolish the old leaders and replace them with the ones of your choice and BOOM, instant conquer.
    you are being unrealistic if you think diplomacy will solve all problems.
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    yet the vikings had superior tech too and the natives beat them back? hell some suggest had disease not weaken the native tribes the colonization of the new world would have failed.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    A reflection on the fact that the governments - all of them, from the town and county on up, including the rural Jim Crow counties of the Confederacy - will still have guns, might bring a pause there.

    We have experience with an American disarmed citizenry, under armed (and locally armed) government: Black people in the South from 1867 until 1967, Reds on various reservations from the early 1800s until the late 1970s, Japanese people in the 1940s, etc. These are not experiences one would wish to multiply.

Share This Page