HOME | DD
TheRealMacabre β NRA
Published: 2009-05-02 18:50:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 887; Favourites: 30; Downloads: 1244
Redirect to original
Description
Pow pow!Related content
Comments: 18
Itβs the person who pulls the trigger that does the killing.
π: 0 β©: 0
oh this is perfect now to find the rifle for the bullets we have here....
π: 0 β©: 0
No matter what anti gunners do to my guns, I will always have my flamethrower! A flamethrower is not considered a firearm (can you say irony) nor deadly or destructive weapon and you can get them at government auctions for $800 to $1200, or in other words the same price as an average gun.
π: 0 β©: 0
OK Iβll agree your argument makes sense if you also add the word automobile like this to your summary. βSome choices people should not be exposed to, and i think that having the power to choose over someone's death with a gun (or an automobile) is a choice no human should be exposed to.β
π: 0 β©: 0
I guess I question the validity of "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" because it doesn't fairly admit the role of guns in a large portion of present day murders. The "hate to admit it" is my reluctance to accept that "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE." I don't feel that the person holding the weapon, however responsible they are, changes the fact that these weapons are lethal.
I'm not trying to make a argument about gun ownership. I'm just dealing with the limitations of the "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE" argument.
π: 0 β©: 1
As much as I usually like your warped logic, this one makes no sense to me at all. It would then seem to follow that drunk drivers don't kill people, cars do.
π: 0 β©: 1
correct me if i'm wrong, but i understand 'theRealMacabre' this way:
guns are often used just because they are there. triggerhappy people who go in the garden with a rifle because they heard a noise can only shoot if they have a gun. if they did not posess a gun, they would be too cowardly to attack a thief or whatever. also, people often carry guns as a protection, and then end up using them at the slightest occasion, even if it's not at all necessary - if they did not have a gun, they'd take an insult as it is, and wouldn't just shoot someone because they have a weapon on their hip that they want to show off.
how else would you explain 13 year old kids shooting even younger kids? i highly doubt that there is anything premeditated about that, it's the fact that a gun is so readily available. it's so easy to pull a trigger, and if those kids didn't have access to guns, they'd stay at home and would never dare getting in to those sort of fights.
guns have made killing someone so much easier than any other method: they are reasonably easy to have access to, and instantly lethal.
same thing with cars: if people did not have access to cars, they would never learn to drive, they'd use safer methods like walking or riding their bikes. so does the invention of cars have anything to do with road accidents? I'd say it does. Some choices people should not be exposed to, and i think that having the power to choose over someone's death with a gun is a choice no human should be exposed to.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not quite. Firearms are used because they are an effective force-multiplier when force is needed. It is someone who has some breakdown in reasoning and thought who brings a firearm out over an insult.
"...wouldn't just shoot someone because they have a weapon on their hip that they want to show off. how else would you explain 13 year old kids shooting even younger kids?..."
Wrong. If the insult is to the point where the person would draw a weapon, they would attack the one giving the insult either way. Be it with fists or a pocket knife, the insulted would still act. To legally carry a sidearm, a person goes through training, background checks, and a qualification process. If they fail at any point, then they are not allowed a carry license.
And with the school shootings, if the child can get access to a firearm that easily, then it is a failure upon the parents to practice proper safety by not storing it in a secure location. More often than not, the '13 year olds' have been receiving mental and physical abuse by their fellow students for an extended period of time with little to no help from the faculty, even if the abuse is brought to their attention. I myself have thought repeatedly over doing such a thing when I was in middle school and high school. I will tell you, yes, these kids DO premeditate. I never did because I was taught very early that using a firearm for that is wrong, and also had no access to one. There were ( and still are) several in my house, but they are secured in a safe that I don't know the combination to.
If a person is taught the proper ways to handle a firearm, and has the good judgment on when and when not to use it, then the firearm is nothing but a machine of iron. A firearm is just a tool, and it is the person who uses it who is responsible for the consequences of their actions.
π: 0 β©: 0
...unless we're going for that "20 successful bayonet kills" rank bonus, of course.
π: 0 β©: 0
yeah, the gun is never even in the equation huh?
π: 0 β©: 0
Bullets do help. You could always beat people to death with a gun, but shooting them is so much more efficient.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think you were looking for effective. It would be more efficient just to beat them over the head, since you lose nothing, and they're still dead. If you shoot them youve used a bullet. Thats one less bullet you have.
π: 0 β©: 1
True. And in this economy, you can't afford to waste bullets.
π: 0 β©: 1