• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

These Students will change US gun landscape

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The chain saw and the butcher-knife are specifically designed to be
very efficient at disassembling organic things. Accidents, and the occasional
murder are inevitable. Explicitely designed to cause injury?

Yes and no. The nuclear bomb is designed to be able to kill.
Its actual use is something quite different.

A gun in defensive use is used far more often to prevent than to cause injury.


The car is de(signed to go very fast, which is inherently dangerous.
Accidents are inevitable. You get suicide, sometimes murder. Secondary
effects, where a knife is exactly for slicing flesh, the primary function.

The distinctions that might be made between primary and secondary
properties is academic, really.

We wont outlaw cars to prevent murder or suicide, nor accidents.

To outlaw guns to prevent suicide would be pretty ridiculous.
In Hong Kong, preferred metod is to step off the balcony.
Cant outlaw those. There is always a way.

FWIW, I was looking down from 17th floor in HK. I was going to kill
myself over something that happened in the USA. Something I could
have avoided if I'd had any means of defending myself.

This is all a bit disconnected, sorry, I am cooking and doing three things
at once.

Im sure you can find the sense in it tho. Right? :D

It looks as if millions of US school children do not agree with you. They'll have the vote very soon.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Obviously you need a person to pull the trigger but a gun certainly makes killing a lot easier than without.
Sure. That wasn't the point. The point was, as I said, guns are not necessarily the problem. I am not saying that they are not (even though I believe they are not). I am suggesting that it is surprising to me that you conclude so easily that they are.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
What "Home invading types."?

Hi........ Absolutely!
This idea that a gun is best to protect from a 'home invasion'...... where do they get this crazy idea from from?

Some decent home-security keeps 'home-invasions' out. But I get the feeling that they buy a gun and do nothing else..... it's almost as if some of these gunners want to shoot at somebody. :D
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Yes........ we had a ram-raid attack in Gravesend last week.

But how many school murders have taken place since 2001? Hmmm? :shrug:
I don't know. I am not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China either. However you asked, I knew of at least one. So I figured, hey maybe people think they do not occur. Earlier a poster suggested that vehicular homocides was virtually nonexistent.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Gone
Premium Member
Sure. That wasn't the point. The point was, as I said, guns are not necessarily the problem. I am not saying that they are not (even though I believe they are not). I am suggesting that it is surprising to me that you conclude so easily that they are.
I'm not sure how simple logic is surprising. A person bent on murder is going to be able to kill a lot more people with a gun and especially with a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15 than they are with a knife, car or whatever else. Do you think Stephen Paddock would've been able to mow down 58 people if he had a bolt-action rifle and not an arsenal of legal assault weapons, high capacity mags and bump stocks?

People love to bring up the terror attacks in Europe ("see, they still kill people but with trucks!") but can you imagine if the Bastille Day mass murderer used an AR-15 instead and how many more people would've been killed?

Yes, obviously the gun makes the difference. It makes killing very easy, very simple. Add to that semi-auto rifles (or fully auto in practice, with bump stocks), high capacity magazines and lax laws and high casualty killings are a cinch to pull off.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Not that I've ever needed a gun to deal with, no. I doubt you do either.

I worked on a security operation for a national retailer in 1991.
The criminals were choosing a store at closing time, and ensuring that they were the last folks in the store at 'let-out' time. Then they soon had the staff on the floor at gun point in a neat line, picked out the responsible person/keyholder and beat them badly for safe position and keys/codes.

The store-detectives and retail investigators were all put on store-watch 'outside' the premises, and with a telephone arranged at any other venue, waiting for the same car to even pass by the watched store, and then get a call to waiting police teams.

Our ops were outside when they saw either the known vehicle or the hold-up, were outside when they alerted the police, and stayed outside after carrying out those instructions, taking as many details and descriptions as possible.

We were to stay outside. After each attack the store staff just insulted and screamed at any security op who had stayed outside and carried out their instructions. I often have thought of that recently.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I don't know. I am not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China either. However you asked, I knew of at least one. So I figured, hey maybe people think they do not occur. Earlier a poster suggested that vehicular homocides was virtually nonexistent.
Oh, you knew about a car attack in 2001, but you're not quite sure about all the mass school shootings since?

Your schoolkids seem to know.

They've been demonstrating across America, and, surprisingly, European schoolkids have been demonstrating here in support of those US schoolkids.

You might not know, but they do.
 
Top