• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

swilow said:
I get the feeling you just don't want to see guns as the weapons they are.

Maybe those kids were a threat? Maybe he felt safer with them dead? :|



Yeah, that was nonsense. Anyone who believes that the creator of the universe has anything to do with guns is clutching at straws.
Click to expand...

Guns aren't weapons, they're tools.

For example, a hammer takes a nail, and turns it into a hammered in nail. Whereas a gun takes a living person, and turns it into a dead person.

:)
 
JessFR said:
Guns aren't weapons, they're tools.

For example, a hammer takes a nail, and turns it into a hammered in nail. Whereas a gun takes a living person, and turns it into a dead person.

:)
Click to expand...

weapons are a specific sub-type of tools whose primary and intended use is causing harm; the intended use of firearms is killing rather than merely harming.
 
Gun's aren't good for self defense or hunting, they're only good for murdering people in cold blood. 8)
 
Captain.Heroin said:
I think that the intended use of firearms is mostly to dissuade someone from committing a crime. Many guns enable self-defense and bullets aren't always fired.
Click to expand...

I don't think thats correct. Guns were certainly NOT designed for defense. They are offensive weapons by their very nature. They are designed to kill.
 
Uhh, being designed to kill doesn't make them designed for offense rather than defense. In actual fact, both are such intangible qualities on this context I find it silly to suggest they are designed for either. Most accurate would be to say they were designed to fire ammunition, and the ammunition has various more specific design intentions. Generally the primary goal is to disable a person as fast as possible. And that is generally the thinking behind how people are trained to use them.

The idea of "shoot to kill" or "shoot to injure" outside very specific contexts is largely a media invention. The primary goal is shoot to disable. Which yes often results in death, but that's not the thinking going on. In a general sense anyway.
 
Damn Jesse, you love the semantic debates.

I'm pretty happy with defining guns as be offensive weapons designed to kill.
 
If someone's trying to attack you for whatever reason and you shoot them how is that not defense?
 
swilow said:
I get the feeling you just don't want to see guns as the weapons they are.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with actors posing as victims to further leftist agendas.

All guns are weapons I'm not denying that.

12 teens have been victims in chicago since 2018, but the masses aren't told to care about them. People only care when they're told to care and its getting obvious and offensive to anyone with common sense.
 
nuttynutskin said:
If someone's trying to attack you for whatever reason and you shoot them how is that not defense?
Click to expand...

unless somebody is attacking you with lethal force then there's no reason to respond with lethal force. if it were up to me then people using such an absurd amount of excessive force would be charged with murder / attempted murder. in addition to the basics like muzzle awareness, trigger and target discipline, never leaving a loaded weapon lying around, never letting ones weapon out of one's sight when its not properly stored, etc, needing to be mandatory training before one should be allowed to own a firearm, escalation of force training should be as well.
 
tathra said:
unless somebody is attacking you with lethal force then there's no reason to respond with lethal force. if it were up to me then people using such an absurd amount of excessive force would be charged with murder / attempted murder. in addition to the basics like muzzle awareness, trigger and target discipline, never leaving a loaded weapon lying around, never letting ones weapon out of one's sight when its not properly stored, etc, needing to be mandatory training before one should be allowed to own a firearm, escalation of force training should be as well.
Click to expand...

Good post. If you need training to drive a car, why not a gun?

David Wooderson said:
I have a problem with actors posing as victims to further leftist agendas.

All guns are weapons I'm not denying that.

12 teens have been victims in chicago since 2018, but the masses aren't told to care about them. People only care when they're told to care and its getting obvious and offensive to anyone with common sense.
Click to expand...

That's just the Trump method for approaching opponents. Turn them into mindless parrots and you don't need to respond to any of their arguments. Maybe because you can't?

I care about massacres because I care about them. No one told me to.
 
Last edited:
tathra said:
unless somebody is attacking you with lethal force then there's no reason to respond with lethal force. if it were up to me then people using such an absurd amount of excessive force would be charged with murder / attempted murder. in addition to the basics like muzzle awareness, trigger and target discipline, never leaving a loaded weapon lying around, never letting ones weapon out of one's sight when its not properly stored, etc, needing to be mandatory training before one should be allowed to own a firearm, escalation of force training should be as well.
Click to expand...

So if somoene's legally carrying and gets jumped by someone they should just take the beating and risk the possibility of their gun getting taken? A punch could be considered lethal force. People have died from one well placed punch.

And as far as not leaving a loaded weapon lying around, what do you do if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night? Yell at them to hang on for a second because you need some time to load your gun or find the keys to the safe in the other room? 8( My Ruger that I keep beside my bed has 17 rounds and the safety is off, although it's not exactly "laying around". It's in it's case but the case is not latched.
 
For example 1, if you weren't carrying a gun you'd have no fear of it being taken. The gun is making that situation more dangerous for you for the very reason you said. But I agree with tathra, self defense should be proportionate.

In example 2, you are leaving a gun lying around in case of a very unlikely eventuality. Home invasions are rare but people shooting themselves and others because of a loaded gun lying around is less so. So you may be safer in a home invasion but are inherently less safe simply by dint of said loaded weapon.

In neither example is your gun really protecting you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top