Debate of the Week: Guns

Discussion in 'General Off-Topic Chat' started by Skyline969, Dec 2, 2009.

Dec 2, 2009
  1. Skyline969
    OP

    Member Skyline969 MENUdo Afficionado

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Country:
    Canada
    Alright, I decided to starts a Debate of the Week. Basically, I give a topic and people in the thread can debate about said topic.

    Now when I say debate, I mean give your opinion, allow others to give theirs, and compare opinions, etc. This isn't intended to be a flame war, and trolls are not welcome. If you can give an intelligent viewpoint on the topic at hand and you can maturely enter a debate without bitching other people, flaming, or arguing, then come on in. If you've got something to say to agree with me, or if you have a differing opinion, speak your mind. Any proper, mature statement is acceptable.

    Mods, please lock the topic if it gets to be too out of hand.


    Now then, on with the Debate of the Week!

    This week's topic is guns, particularly the famous saying "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." What's your opinion on this?

    Personally, I think it's completely true. Let's think of this here for a sec - if I have a loaded gun in a stand pointed at my head, and nobody is touching that gun, it will never kill me. It'll just sit there. However, if someone were to come to the gun and pull the trigger, they'd have killed me. A gun is a mere tool that has the capacity to kill, but it doesn't kill people. It doesn't pull the trigger; it just does what it's told by the user. The person behind the gun has the intent to kill, and the gun is allowing the person to do that easier. But the gun doesn't have a mind of its own and it doesn't kill the other person. Ergo, guns don't kill people; people kill people.
     
  2. Guild McCommunist

    Member Guild McCommunist (not on boat)

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,151
    Location:
    The Danger Zone
    Country:
    United States


    My thoughts exactly.

    Anyway, gun control should depend on your background. Thugs don't deserve guns.
     
  3. Wankare

    Member Wankare GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Santo Domingo
    Country:
    Dominican Republic
    I agree with you
    because , the gun itself won't hurt anybody , it needs to be used by someone to achieve that goal.
    but i mean the INTENTION is what matters the most , because Guns can be used as a self-defense tool
    as they can also be used to KILL or STEAL from someone or even KIDNAP someone, but the gun really has no choice of whatever uses its owner has with it .
     
  4. Hop2089

    Member Hop2089 Cute>Hot

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    3,810
    Country:
    United States
    Gun control should be purpose specific and if it's for a hunting or sportshooting practice such as clay shooting then there needs to be ID shown in a form of a hunting license with the usual ID and background checks. I also approve gun ownership for battered/abused women in danger of serious harm. I approve of vintage/classic/antique guns purchased for collectors as well. Criminals with non self defense violent convictions, gang ties, hate group ties, or an intent to sell drug charge cannot own a gun.
     
  5. Vater Unser

    Member Vater Unser GBAtemp Addict

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,184
    Location:
    Pen Island
    Country:
    Germany
    Hard to say.
    On the one hand, everybody should have the right to protect himself with whatever weapon he chooses to, after all, there's always a chance he could be attacked with an even bigger, more dangerous weapon...

    On the other hand, humanity is stupid, and experience has shown as that you really can't put guns into people's hands.
    However, it'd be stupid to assume that banning guns would stop criminal people from getting their hands on them, let alone cut gun criminality, so I'm fine with the current gun control system.
     
  6. Advi

    Member Advi GBAtemp Maniac

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,143
    Country:
    United States
    Problem with banning guns, is that it almost entirely covers people who wouldn't commit crimes with them. Most guns used in illegal acts are purchased on the black market or otherwise illegally
     
  7. Skyline969
    OP

    Member Skyline969 MENUdo Afficionado

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Country:
    Canada
    I understand that that video's supposed to be a joke, but it does bring me to another point - the handgun is actually very useful for hunters. My father was a hunter when he was younger, and without a handgun he would have been killed. He was bear hunting, and a bear was climbing up a tree to get to my father in his stand. If my father didn't have a handgun, he would have been killed by the bear. Instead, he was able to protect himself and kill the bear.
     
  8. Monkee3000

    Member Monkee3000 GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Paradise
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Gun = A tool that kills.
    Human = A "tool" that kills.

    Sorry British humour.
     
  9. BORTZ

    Global Moderator BORTZ wtf, nintendo

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,652
    Country:
    United States
    I think you are allowed to own guns and i am behind it all the way.
     
  10. fgghjjkll

    Member fgghjjkll GBATemp MegaMan

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Country:
    Australia
    Guns are merely a tool. A fork could be a dangerous weapon. Why do people use it stab their chips and not kill the hobo down the street? They have common sense and they are not stupid
     
  11. FAST6191

    Reporter FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,738
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Ooh debate time.

    Being born, raised and presently located in the UK this side of 1980 means there are next to no legitimate* weapons around here (at least not in the numbers seen in the US, Canada, mainland Europe and just about everywhere else in the world).
    I am however the son of a Texan and more than a few associates of family and myself play military or other similar lines of work so I would like to think I know my way around a weapon, perhaps not as much as I would like and indeed it has been several years since I shot anything other than an air rifle, a shotgun (breech loaded, standard birdshot or occasionally buckshot rather than anything fun like single slug) at a clay pigeon or something with a laser in it not to mention I would probably fail hard in a game of identify weapons from pictures let alone their "stats".

    @Skyline969 a valid point but we must never to use personal experience or unfounded opinion as a justification in such debates, as an anecdote sure but never as a justification.

    "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"
    Indeed they do but on measure it makes it a considerably easier task than most other methods so it is perhaps not the binary situation/line of thought the phrase is framed around and I sense this reasoning is what many of those who would argue against such a phrase would use. Does on balance this outweigh the "need" for a firearm?

    Secondly while I say easier my secondary argument here is that without putting serious time in down at a range (as in hundreds of rounds a month, preferably a week) or equivalent you are danger to everyone.
    Even then personal defence almost invariably means close quarters which is another game entirely (it is certainly not sufficient to just be accurate)
    Targets as well as not having the same mental block present (see various studies done post world war 2 on getting aimed for killshot percentages higher- it could also be spun the opposite way in that a firearm presents an emotional disconnect of sorts seeing as you may not have to use much/any force or see blood on you from your actions)
    Fear kicking in (you have to train long and hard to allow you to "think" in a danger scenario)
    Furthermore you also have to factor in draw time (done properly my knife or otherwise drawn, readied and aimed weapon will have killed you "long" before you get to the point where your firearm is combat effective) and whether your shot will incapacitate your opponent; a trained, armoured or "drugged up" person can usually take a shot outside of the kill zone at least for long enough to finish the task of hurting you, especially when using civilian ammunition (gun types please spare everyone a debate here although I shall take the opportunity to swipe at the .45).

    "I also approve gun ownership for battered/abused women in danger of serious harm"
    I thought you just discounted the mentally unstable.

    *going slightly off topic. I would argue that there is a measure of protection afforded by knowing that people may well be armed but it is near impossible to quantify and if you could it would be significant but only just. Similarly criminals by definition do not follow the law which leads to the real reason for this aside- even though weapons are for the most part banned in the UK it is still entirely possible to get one for a nominal outlay- existing weapons, black market imports, homebuilt (it is not hard with modern tools and materials) or recommissioned (at various points in time decommissioned weapons were allowed: decommissioning can mean just about anything that renders the weapon unable to fire other than a safety catch depending on the person you speak to).

    Back on topic I suppose we have to decide on many things.

    What number of "preventable" deaths or injuries is acceptable (indeed do we count suicides in there; right to life surely means right to death)? this factors in to how we can use statistics to back up arguments which is inherently tricky depending on how you break them down (age range, location, type or work, time of day, time of year........ have all be used to hide things, promote things or completely gloss over alternative reasoning, not gun related but holds nice examples of what I am going for: http://www.ted.com/talks/emily_oster_flips..._in_africa.html ).

    In what situations is lethal force acceptable? Police have loads of rules here and they vary widely by unit type and location, what standards should the "man on the street" be held to?

    In what situations is causing serious injury (I kneecap someone and they will probably never walk the same) acceptable?
    A thinking point: by about 14 years old most males will be able to gain an appreciable amount of muscle and skill that is able to be used to hurt someone well enough as well as the presence of thought sufficient enough to understand the ramifications of their actions. Is it acceptable as someone ten years older to kick the crap out of them when they threaten a/that person, if not just a single one what about two of them at the same time?
    Spin 2 here: special needs types. Same scenarios and questions at the end.

    What types of weapon, weapon modifications and ammunition are acceptable?
    Many will immediately go for automatic weapons here- are they significantly more troublesome to the "wronged" parties in the situations that exist?
    Are clip/magazine sizes justified in being limited, speed loading methods have also taken fire on occasion (even something as simple as taping two magazines together).
    What makes ammunition of a given type unsuitable?
    Hair triggers or other modifications there (two stage, hair triggers, single action/double action tweaks/removal)?
    Sight modifications?
    Laser aiming?
    Barrel mods (thinking shotgun but I will also include silencers or combat "tips" ( http://www.shotgunreport.com/index.html ) and maybe even smooth bore)
    Grip modification?
    Concealed carry vs open carry (places might allow you to have a weapon on a visible holster but to keep it beneath a coat or in a bag is not acceptable). By similar line of thought: carried loaded or unloaded*?
    These examples have all come under fire in various parts of the world.

    *factors into the whole ability to ready a weapon in a reasonable time.

    Location based restrictions: no discharging in city limits, nothing near a school*, police station, en route to a (gun) club?
    Before kneejerking; killing a policeman, killing a schoolkid, killing an average adult, as a crude form of euthanasia or killing a hobo?
    Which is worse and if everyone is equal enough in terms of right to life why should one be worse than another (looking towards drawing heat from law enforcement or media attention)?

    What are acceptable uses for a weapon and indeed does it even need positive justifications (can I just say my weapon is not for unjustifiably hurting things or otherwise unlawful activity and be on my way, can it be sold with that as the unsaid proviso, can it be sold with the unsaid proviso of "just don't be a dick about it"?)

    I hinted at it earlier but is there an inherent need to be armed with a firearm; balls to the wall- hunter* gatherer/modern quality of life scenario is there a need for a firearm?
    *anyone making the obvious remark gets an internet slap.

    Self defence is an interesting one too: one the one hand some might argue that police should do the job, others would argue they are just a nice bonus (you are responsible for you) and others still would argue that police are too few in number (indeed you venture into the sticks and there are likely to only be one or two to cover a considerable area*) so while they should physics/experience/reality dictates they can not be there to help you in a reasonable time should needs be.

    *effectively lawless zones are often amazing places to be, you guys should try it some time.
     
  12. BORTZ

    Global Moderator BORTZ wtf, nintendo

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,652
    Country:
    United States
    Fast i love reading your posts. I always feel so informed afterwards.
     

Share This Page