| Author |
|
Hector Baez
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 686
|
| Posted: 29 August 2015 at 10:12pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"Really? People are dying by the tens of thousands, and you want to turn this into an argument over semantics? You reduce the problem to people shooting other people, yet your country, with half the population of the United States, has twice the gun death rate. That's more than people shooting other people. That speaks to a nation's very culture, one in which guns are the FIRST choice in "solving" problems. If you want to make the argument that the kinds of restrictions and controls that have been suggested for this country won't work because they have not worked in Brazil, you first have to establish that America and Brazil are beginning from the same point. Clearly they are not."
Never made that argument...
Someone else was comparing their situation in Brazil...
How they outlawed guns to the bad guys...
Now the bad guys are using knives...
Bad guys/Crazy/who ever it may be...
People if they really want to kill you can do it with any weapon gun/knife/rock/fist...in reverse order of the evolution of "hand to hand" combat.
Also it's not MY country I am a US citizen...
You might be mistaking me for the original post.
Edited: for typos.
Edited by Hector Baez on 29 August 2015 at 10:52pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Charles Valderrama
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4721
|
| Posted: 29 August 2015 at 11:09pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Some here seem to have lost sight of the real point of this discussion. It isn't about how many responsible gun owners there are or statistics in the US compared to other, smaller countries....and I posted a link (comedic but true) that answers the question of how effective a gun is to protect one's home/loved ones.
It's that we as a society are so desensitized that the body count (young or old) will continue to rise and NOTHING will ever convince the lawmakers that gun reform and changing the 2nd Amendment is necessary.
There will be nothing but excuses, and more mentally unstable people will have easy access to guns - the easiest, most cowardly way to cause harm (more effective than knives, etc.) to many.
-C! |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Robert Ingrao
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 284
|
| Posted: 30 August 2015 at 3:52am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
as much as i can both understand AND get behind why one might want a gun for protection, that 1 in 1000000 chance of need is why there have been SO MANY guns sold and continuing to be sold. if we stopped the manufacture of new guns and everyone just bought USED guns that would be a start. then if we said only one gun per person, that would be the next level of minimizing whats out there.i would be completely ok with only allowing ONE GUN PER PERSON (like a pistol or hunting rifle). but the NRA wont go for that. less guns is the only solution, or NO guns. we've allowed guns for the past 200+ years - its not working anymore. there is little middle ground.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132336
|
| Posted: 30 August 2015 at 12:24pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
It would be a tough sell to get a one-per-person rule pushed thru. The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms (plural), and too many people have for too long interpreted that as meaning individuals have the right to as many weapons as they want. A lot of damage was done when the weasels we elect absolved gun manufacturers of any responsibility. Ford can be called into court if its cars ACCIDENTALLY kill people. But when a company manufactures something INTENDED to kill people, they do so with impunity. This is a nation where possession of marihuana can get you hard time, but selling printable guns on the internet spurs lawmakers to instant--- debate.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Cory Vandernet
Byrne Robotics Member
Henchman
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: 30 August 2015 at 1:58pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
So, as I understand it, the 2nd amendment was created to maintain a citizen militia to repel foreign invaders, the US government has since installed a military complex rendering the militia obsolete. The US government has done little to amend the amendment since 1791 thereby effectively declaring open season on it's own citizens.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Skelley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 231
|
| Posted: 31 August 2015 at 10:44am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
A lot of damage was done when the weasels we elect absolved gun manufacturers of any responsibility. Ford can be called into court if its cars ACCIDENTALLY kill people. But when a company manufactures something INTENDED to kill people, they do so with impunity. This is a nation where possession of marihuana can get you hard time, but selling printable guns on the internet spurs lawmakers to instant--- debate. |
|
|
Ford isn't called into court if someone uses a truck to run down someone that wronged them, only when the vehicle fails causing death or dismemberment. A gun manufacturer can be called into court when a issue with a firearm caused a major malfunction and ended up maiming the operator. It's rare as a gun is heavily tested and has to preform to Government required specifications.
On the printed guns things, which I have posted a few times on how that should be handled quickly and how against them I am, when have you ever seen politicians move quickly on any new technology? They can't even figure out if we should be allowed free and open internet.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132336
|
| Posted: 31 August 2015 at 11:13am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Ford isn't called into court if someone uses a truck to run down someone that wronged them, only when the vehicle fails causing death or dismemberment. A gun manufacturer can be called into court when a issue with a firearm caused a major malfunction and ended up maiming the operator. It's rare as a gun is heavily tested and has to preform to Government required specifications. ••• Once again, point missed. Ford can get in trouble if something goes WRONG with their product and someone is killed or injured. Gun manufacturers are free of blame when their product is used AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE USED and someone is killed or injured.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 31 August 2015 at 12:20pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
JB: Ford can get in trouble if something goes WRONG with their
product and someone is killed or injured.
Gun manufacturers are free of blame when their product is used AS IT
WAS DESIGNED TO BE USED and someone is killed or injured.
SER: This comes up often when a child finds a gun and shoots
someone (another child, a family member). The gun advocates claim
that a child could "accidentally" kill a family member with a car or
lawn mower. The problem there is that few 4 year olds can even
physically operate a car or lawn mower, and even if they were able to
do so, they are using the vehicle *incorrectly.* They each have a
purpose that is not to kill.
There is no pressure on gun manufacturers to design guns that a
*child* cannot operate *correctly* (and I do not interject 'morality' into
this -- obviously a child killing another child is "wrong" morally but the
child still used the gun "correctly" as it was designed). So I do hold
gun manufacturers responsible for a lot of this carnage.
Children and often untrained citizens can kill a lot of people quickly
with guns as they are currently made. I doubt the Charleston or
Virginia shooters took even one marksmanship class. Why should
they? You just point and shoot and you're going to kill a lot of people.
You don't even have to spend time in the gym. They're not even that
heavy.
If guns were as difficult to use as it would be for me to suddenly train
myself to draw like John Byrne or Neal Adams, I wouldn't mind their
proliferation as much as I do now.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Skelley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 231
|
| Posted: 31 August 2015 at 1:15pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
| Once again, point missed. |
|
|
At the risk of getting banned... Fair enough, but I'm not sure why they would be called into court. The inanimate object worked as designed. The person pulling that trigger is the one that broke the law. The ownership has to be upon the person doing the deed. I can not think of any object that has ever been liable for the use of it's products, unless that product was already illegal. Just like when a guy gets drunk and runs down a bunch of school kids Ford isn't responsible because the guy made the choice of getting behind that wheel, the guy pulling the trigger made that choice in killing someone. Yes, guns makes the whole people killing people way too easy and something should be done to stem the tide of shootings but the gun still requires someone making the choice to kill someone.
Stephen Robinson wrote:
If guns were as difficult to use as it would be for me to suddenly train
myself to draw like John Byrne or Neal Adams, I wouldn't mind their
proliferation as much as I do now. |
|
|
That would completely destroy the effectiveness upon the battlefield, which is the reason guns have evolved past the Chinese Fire Lance.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 31 August 2015 at 1:32pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
BRIAN: That would completely destroy the effectiveness upon the
battlefield, which is the reason guns have evolved past the Chinese Fire
Lance.
SER: The United States has arguably the best trained military in the
world, and yet the only way that their weapons can be "effective" on the
battlefield is for a 4 year old to be able to operate one as easily as
switching on a TV remote?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132336
|
| Posted: 31 August 2015 at 1:38pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
At the risk of getting banned...••• For THAT? Hairshirts are in aisle three.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Skelley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 231
|
| Posted: 31 August 2015 at 1:45pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Stephen Robinson wrote:
The United States has arguably the best trained military in the
world, and yet the only way that their weapons can be "effective" on the
battlefield is for a 4 year old to be able to operate one as easily as
switching on a TV remote? |
|
|
Depends on what you consider the "best trained" to mean. You don't always get the brightest people on the front lines. You also have to account for the stresses of the battlefield where most people rise to the amount they've been trained. The more complex the firearm the greater the chances the operator would fail to use it. It's been proven a few times (I'll have to dig up the studies, but there is a book called "On Killing" written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman where he discusses how people really react on battlefields in his studies on the effects of killing has on people) The gun has 'evolved' to where it's currently sitting almost entirely due to requests from the DoD. They're the ones requesting easy to use firearms for the reasons I've mentioned. The civilian market gets what trickles down from there. Those guns are also modified to remove things already deemed illegal, such as the full auto ability.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
