1. Debate. (serious)

    do guns kill people?

    i myself think they don't because:

    1. guns were invented for a few reasons. hunting for food, defending yourself against muggers, rapists, and robbers.

    2. we need guns to defend ourselves against an army invasion, (let's say north korea or some **** travels all the way to the U.S. and they decide to kidnap, torture, kill, or do even worse **** to people. you need some guns to protect you from that. also, this is just an example.) or the apocalypse if it ever happens.

    (of course, you would say "that's what the military is for" but the military cant be everywhere because they would porbably mostly be in the city or something, but that is just my theory about that so i could be wrong on this part)

    3. guns do not have a mind of their own, its not like a gun is just gonna magically float in the air and pull its own trigger on someone. therefore, its not the gun(s) itself that makes them dangerous, it's the moron ***** ******* using it that makes them dangerous. yet people think that they should be banned.

    4. know that i only made this post because of all the posts on my facebook newsfeed being about the florida shooting (which if terrible i know)

    5. whatever...butts...AAAAAH sometimes facebook drives me nuts!!!

  2. 1. They were invented because at one point in history two people disagreed with each other.

    They started fighting, hitting each other with sticks, throwing rocks, putting sharp rocks on the end of sticks, crafting bows out of sticks etc..

    It carried on developing over the years to what it is now. They were created for destructive causes, not protective.

    2. How did this even make it as one of your points on defending guns, it has nothing to do with if guns kill people or not, you're just going off on a useless tangent.

    3. There's a reason people want stricter gun laws.


    I can't take this thread seriously despite the title, because this is only a relative concern of yours because you saw it all over social media.

    You're what's wrong with this generation.

  3. 1. They were invented because at one point in history two people disagreed with each other.

    They started fighting, hitting each other with sticks, throwing rocks, putting sharp rocks on the end of sticks, crafting bows out of sticks etc..

    It carried on developing over the years to what it is now. They were created for destructive causes, not protective.

    2. How did this even make it as one of your points on defending guns, it has nothing to do with if guns kill people or not, you're just going off on a useless tangent.

    3. There's a reason people want stricter gun laws.


    I can't take this thread seriously despite the title, because this is only a relative concern of yours because you saw it all over social media.

    You're what's wrong with this generation.

    great argument! but one, i feel that you are forgetting the Oregon trail (and the original second amendment). two, these were just examples (even if the make no sense in which that, i agree with because i was up at like one in the morning making this thread. three, if it weren't for the *****s and ***** teenagers causing shootings for stupid reasons, we wouldn't need any "stricter gun laws". four, i'm not what's wrong with this generation, what's wrong with this generation is:

    - Kids are eating tide pods
    -little kids are acting like they're hot **** because their parents don't check for M rating on video games that were clearly made for adults (referring to CoD and GTA squeakers)
    - most of the U.S. thinks that spanking your child's *** after they did something wrong is abuse
    -most people would rather waste their time being offended over stupid ****, making a protest. (just look at the "Not my president" march after trump became president)
    -kids at the age of 14 are looking to get laid by "a real man" instead of doing their homework.
    - ever since electronics had front cameras installed into them (like a smart phone, laptop, or smart tv for example), we never have had any real privacy (because even when your device is off, the FBI, CIA, or some pedophile is/can see at you, spying on you through the camera and listening to everything you say through the microhone installed with them. it can be happening right now and you wouldn't be aware of it. just think, KIDS have these sevices.

    and these are only 6 things.


    however, you wouldn't agree with me just because it came out of my mouth/keyboard. wouldn't you?

    exactly.

  4. do guns kill people?

    i myself think they don't because:

    1. guns were invented for a few reasons. hunting for food, defending yourself against muggers, rapists, and robbers.

    2. we need guns to defend ourselves against an army invasion, (let's say north korea or some **** travels all the way to the U.S. and they decide to kidnap, torture, kill, or do even worse **** to people. you need some guns to protect you from that. also, this is just an example.) or the apocalypse if it ever happens.

    (of course, you would say "that's what the military is for" but the military cant be everywhere because they would porbably mostly be in the city or something, but that is just my theory about that so i could be wrong on this part)

    3. guns do not have a mind of their own, its not like a gun is just gonna magically float in the air and pull its own trigger on someone. therefore, its not the gun(s) itself that makes them dangerous, it's the moron ***** ******* using it that makes them dangerous. yet people think that they should be banned.

    4. know that i only made this post because of all the posts on my facebook newsfeed being about the florida shooting (which if terrible i know)

    5. whatever...butts...AAAAAH sometimes facebook drives me nuts!!!
    1. Guns were invented for one singular reason. War. To gain an advantage over others and take from them.

    2. This is not true. We don't need to arm our citizens to protect the country against invasion. People try to use this argument as to why the 2nd amendment exists. Which is also false. The 2nd amendment exists so that the people can protect themselves and/or rise up against a rogue government.

    3. Right. Which is why I say guns don't kill people. People kill people.

    4. Facebook is the best place to see people at their dumbest. It's not a place you should expect intelligent arguments to come from.

    5. Refer to #4.
    great argument! but one, i feel that you are forgetting the Oregon trail (and the original second amendment). two, these were just examples (even if the make no sense in which that, i agree with because i was up at like one in the morning making this thread. three, if it weren't for the *****s and ***** teenagers causing shootings for stupid reasons, we wouldn't need any "stricter gun laws". four, i'm not what's wrong with this generation, what's wrong with this generation is:
    What does the Oregon Trail have to do with anything? As for the mention of the 2nd amendment, refer to #2 above.
    And of course if it weren't for awful people, we wouldn't need such restrictions on arms. But the world is filled with people who do awful things.

    - Kids are eating tide pods
    -little kids are acting like they're hot **** because their parents don't check for M rating on video games that were clearly made for adults (referring to CoD and GTA squeakers)
    - most of the U.S. thinks that spanking your child's *** after they did something wrong is abuse
    -most people would rather waste their time being offended over stupid ****, making a protest. (just look at the "Not my president" march after trump became president)
    -kids at the age of 14 are looking to get laid by "a real man" instead of doing their homework.
    - ever since electronics had front cameras installed into them (like a smart phone, laptop, or smart tv for example), we never have had any real privacy (because even when your device is off, the FBI, CIA, or some pedophile is/can see at you, spying on you through the camera and listening to everything you say through the microhone installed with them. it can be happening right now and you wouldn't be aware of it. just think, KIDS have these sevices.

    and these are only 6 things.


    however, you wouldn't agree with me just because it came out of my mouth/keyboard. wouldn't you?

    exactly.
    A. No they aren't. It's a meme. The number of people who think it is real is ridiculous. Any people who have actually done this, did so upon finding out about the meme and thinking it was real.
    B. Right. Just like a large areas in the middle east believes in cutting off the hands of thieves, and that stoning women who are victims of rape are socially acceptable behaviors. Focusing on one part of the world and trying to paint it in a bad light is bad overall, because you're forgetting that the rest of the world is just as awful.
    C. Welcome to age of the internet, where people think they can act however they like without any real-world repercussions.
    D. And in Europe, just a few hundred years ago, it was socially accepted that girls should be married by the age of 14, and should bear children very soon thereafter. Have you ever read Romeo and Juliet? How old do you think Juliet is?


    The world is a messed up place, and no single person is going to fix it. Especially with debates on Facebook.

  5. guns were invented for
    They were invented because
    Guns were invented for
    I don't think the intention of the invention is relevant to the discussion of said invention. Many (very famous, useful, still in use) products ended up being used for things other than the original design purpose.

    -Coca-Cola was "invented for" aid against morphine addiction. Now it's just an unhealthy drink.
    -7-Up was "invented for" mood enhancement. Now it's just an unhealthy drink.
    -Listerine was "invented for" cleaning floors and as an antiseptic. Now it's just a healthy drink, er, mouthwash.
    -Bubble wrap was "invented for" holding glue for easy application of wallpaper. Now it's a packing filler.
    -Gun cotton was "invented for" guns, obviously. Now you're more likely to find gun cotton/cellucotton in menstrual/sanitary items (tampons/kleenex/etc.)
    -Chainsaws were "invented for" cutting bone in surgery. Now you're more likely to find them used to cut trees.
    -Silly putty was "invented for" a rubber substitute. It's more likely to be used as a toy.
    -Chewing gum was "invented for" a rubber substitute. 4/5 dentists now recommend chewing rubber substitutes after meals.
    -Agent Orange was "invented for" fertilizing soy beans. Hundreds of thousands were killed and sustained birth defects.
    -Ecstacy was "invented for" stopping bleeding. Most people on molly don't have a bleeding problem.
    -Warfarin was "invented for" ..starting bleeding, Technically. It was used as a rat poison. It's saved thousands and keeps thousands alive today as a blood thinner.

    With these examples, I think it's fair to say the intention in the creation of a device has little to no bearing on the device.

    If this is really a post about gun control laws, I'm pretty sure criminals don't consult the lawbook before deciding how to rob or murder someone, so I don't think that's going to help, no. Even if you someone pressed delete and every firearm on the planet was removed, and every law abiding citizen agreed not to use or make them, you'd simply have groups of criminals making firearms for use against unarmed citizens.

    Maybe some day when we all have tracking chips in our skull, ocular recording implants, full drone anti-privacy coverage of the entire planet, oceans, underground, with GPS tracking for every individual, you could actually remove "the threat" of firearms.

    Until then, I fight fire with fire.

    TL;DR-Do guns kill people?
    Some guns owned by people have killed people.
    Some guns owned by people have saved people.

  6. Attempting to dismiss the intention has no place, as it's simply trying to muddle the difference between intention and use. Guns might be used even as paperweight or improvised hammers, but their intent is still just one: violence. The presented examples just expose that further: all of them are regarding things that were created with one intention and found a different use. Guns, on the other hand, were created for the sole intent of violence, have kept that single intent, and will forever remain with that one intent. You don't perform surgery with guns, you don't chew guns, you don't drink or wash your mouth with guns, you use them for violence, be it in actions or threats of action. While you might use them "for fun" in exhibitions and competitions, their nature doesn't changes and they are still being used for shooting just the same - the purpose of the shooting is different, but the use is the same, because that's the only thing they can be used for (if kept used as a gun, and not simply as a random shaped object, like the paperweight example).

    One thing that is funny is how often people with a hard-on for guns are the same who want to keep Muslims out (and vice-versa, leftards are just as bad as rightards). The argument is often that "you can't know who's the terrorist," and I get that. It's something based on prevention instead of reaction when it's already too late. We're not talking about a prank, but about potentially dozens of people dying if an actual terrorist slips by. But how come that same logic isn't applied to guns? After all, you can't know who's the mentally imbalanced who's going to do a mass shooting next, or even just blow a fuse and shoot someone in the traffic out of an argue after a stressful day. Shouldn't the same prevention logic either be applied to both or to none?

    PS: The version for leftards would be: if we should accept all Muslims and deal with the problematic ones individually, because "most of them are good people," how doesn't that applies to guns as most aren't even fired and many times are used for "good purposes"? Shouldn't we "deal with the problematic uses individually" too?

  7. violence isn't the only thing guns were used for, like i said. people used guns to hunt for food in the woods, people in texas use (if not now, then used to) guns to protect themselves and their homes from burglary. guns are used by the military to protect and fight for our country, so we can keep our privileges and our freedom. and again, it's not the guns it selves that make them violent because its inanimate object (meaning it isn't a living thing therefor it can't move on its own), it's the person carrying them and how they use them that makes them "dangerous".

    and in order to get one, not only do you have to be 18 or older, but before you actually get the gun you want, you have to go through a bunch of background checks to make sure you are capable of having a gun without ****ing up. "Right to keep and bear arms is protected by the second amendment, and is part of the bill of rights". it's there,trust me, read it. and yes, the world is filled with terrible people, but the people who do terrible things will eventually have a price to pay for it (such as jail, or execution for example), what they do, is there choice...a terrible terrible choice. what ever happens to them is their mistake (possibly a mistake they will never ever learn from.) think of it as people who eats tide pods. Anyone who sees that it's bad and eats it anyway, will get mouth burns, or die. just let natural selection take it's course right?

    as Darkatar said, "Some guns owned by people have killed people.
    Some guns owned by people have saved people."

  8. violence isn't the only thing guns were used for, like i said. people used guns to hunt for food in the woods, people in texas use (if not now, then used to) guns to protect themselves and their homes from burglary. guns are used by the military to protect and fight for our country, so we can keep our privileges and our freedom.
    I must have missed the part where people hunt, fight burglars and "fight for your country" by stroking the targets with their guns in a non-violent way.

    and again, it's not the guns it selves that make them violent because its inanimate object (meaning it isn't a living thing therefor it can't move on its own), it's the person carrying them and how they use them that makes them "dangerous".
    Never said guns were violent, but nice try.

    and in order to get one, not only do you have to be 18 or older, but before you actually get the gun you want, you have to go through a bunch of background checks to make sure you are capable of having a gun without ****ing up.
    Yeah, it's great how that works and we never get shootings on innocents or for imbecile reasons and... oh wait.

    "Right to keep and bear arms is protected by the second amendment, and is part of the bill of rights". it's there,trust me, read it.
    Preach it, brother, can we get an amen? It's the perfect closure for ignoring the time and context in which those words were written, after all.

    just let natural selection take it's course right?
    Considering the replies you get on most of your threads, I think there's more than a handful of people who consider natural selection fails too often to be relied on.

    as Darkatar said, "Some guns owned by people have killed people.
    Some guns owned by people have saved people."
    Replace it with "knife," "spoon," "fork," "hammer," "pencil" or any object and that remains a platitude. Now show me someone who was shot by a bullet without there being a gun or bullets.

  9. Oh, this discussion ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Prohibiting guns or not isn't a matter of "what is best". It is a matter of what is right. Is it right for me or any other individual, to point a gun at other person threatening to kill him if he chooses to have a gun himself? This gun discussion alone is a reason to have guns and protect yourselves from any tyrannical government.
    In my country unfortunately you are shot and killed if you attempt to have guns without the permission of the state. The state deciding who can use guns or not. We are one step away from Venezuela where the only people with guns are the state supporters.
    Good were the times when any policeman had to ask individuals for a gun if he wanted to shoot any criminal. Nobody trusted the state to have guns. Today it is the opposite. In my country the state can't even send letters properly, they have the monopoly of the service yet still they somehow manage to have a 700 million dollars deficit a year. Yet, still, people are crazy enough to want the state to have the monopoly of security.
    No monopolies are good. Ever. This includes the judicial and law making systems. You handle both these powers to someone and you wonder why there is so much corruption.

  10. violence isn't the only thing guns were used for,
    Guns are used for violence but this is irrelevant. Violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. Defending yourself or others from aggressoers is a violent act, but heroic too.
    A small group of people wants us to immediatly take violence as a bad thing. It's because >they want the monopoly of violence. They do the same to the feeling of hate. Few things are more noble than hating the evil, yet they try to brainwash us and make us accept the existance of evil around us.

    What we lack in the world is the respect for private property. If we truly respected private property we'd not be attacking each other for stupid reasons.

  11. Guns, on the other hand, were created for the sole intent of violence, have kept that single intent, and will forever remain with that one intent.
    Never said guns were violent, but nice try.
    Ok.....

    sole intent of violence, have kept that single intent, and will forever remain with that one intent.
    I must have missed the part where people hunt, fight burglars and "fight for your country" by stroking the targets with their guns in a non-violent way.
    So, you define self-defense as violence? Interesting view, to say the least. Maybe you can say that for the military, but hunting and self-defense is not "violent" At least not in my book.

    Would you call someone who hunts(legally) and kills every day violent?
    Would you call someone violent if they shot someone attempting to drive their vehicle over kids in a school playground?

    I don't define that as "violence". And in my country, the law doesn't define that as violence either. To each their own I guess.

  12. vi·o·lent
    ˈvī(ə)lənt/
    adjective

    vi·o·lence
    ˈvī(ə)ləns/
    noun

    So, you define self-defense as violence? Interesting view, to say the least. Maybe you can say that for the military, but hunting and self-defense is not "violent" At least not in my book.
    Violence is violence ("behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something").

    Would you call someone who hunts(legally) and kills every day violent?
    Would you call someone violent if they shot someone attempting to drive their vehicle over kids in a school playground?
    Read the definition of violence.

    I don't define that as "violence". And in my country, the law doesn't define that as violence either. To each their own I guess.
    Your personal definition of violence doesn't overrules its actual definition.

  13. I don't define that as "violence". And in my country, the law doesn't define that as violence either. To each their own I guess.
    Read the definition of violence.
    vi·o·lence
    ˈvī(ə)ləns/
    noun
    Law
    the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
    Edited: February 21, 2018

  14. I can quote Law definitions as well.

    18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined

    US Code

    The term “crime of violence” means—
    (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop*erty of another, or
    (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
    (Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1001(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2136.)


    "The term "violence" is synonymous with "physical force," and the two are used interchangeably, iu relation to assaults, by elementary writers on criminal law." State v. Wells, 31 Conn. 212.


    Ballantine’s Law Dictionary

    Physical force applied so as to injure or damage [Alexander v State, 40 Tex Crim 395, 411, 49 SW 229, 50 SW 716].

    The snatching or jerking the property of another from his person, where such property is so attached to his person or clothing as to afford resistance, or all antecedent or contemporaneous struggle over the taking of the property will constitute that violence essential for robbery, but a mere filching of loose property from the pocket with no more force than is necessary to lift and remove the property from the pocket is not a taking by force or violence, and is a mere larceny [See State v Parker, 262 Mo 169, 170 SW 1121].


    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary

    The abuse of force [Theorie des Lois Criminelles, 32]. The force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty [Merl. h. t, 2]. In cases of robbery, in order to convict the accused, it is requisite to prove that the act was done with violence; but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits [Alison, Pr. Cr. Law of Scotl. 228; 4 Binn. R. 379; 2 Russ. on Cr. 61; 1 Hale P. C. 553]. When an article is merely snatched, as by a sudden pull, even though a momentary force be exerted, it is not such violence as to constitute a robbery [2 East, P. C. 702; 2 Russ. Cr. 68; Dig. 4, 3, 3 and 3].


    Black’s Law Dictionary

    The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults, by elementary writers on criminal law [State v. Wells, 31 Conn. 212).


    https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/violent-crimes/

    The definition of violent crime suggests that violence is a behavior by persons, against persons or property that intentionally threatens, attempts, or actually inflicts physical harm. The seriousness of the injuries to the victim(s), whether or not guns or other weapons were used and/or whether or not the alleged perpetrator has a criminal record will alter the crime's seriousness.

    Often times, violent crimes against individuals and their property are typically infused with hatred, or at the very least an incredible disregard for the worth and rights of another human being which may also alter the crimes severity in the eyes of a judge or jury. The most common violent crimes are aggravated assault, arson, assault and battery, domestic violence, hate crimes, homicide, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, terrorism and theft/larceny.



    And yet, the definition of the word violence remains the same, as Law cares about legal questions only. Someone legally hunting isn't committing a crime under the law, but the act doesn't stops being covered by the definition of the word violence because of that.

  15. So, you define self-defense as violence? Interesting view, to say the least. Maybe you can say that for the military, but hunting and self-defense is not "violent" At least not in my book.

    Would you call someone who hunts(legally) and kills every day violent?
    Would you call someone violent if they shot someone attempting to drive their vehicle over kids in a school playground?

    I don't define that as "violence". And in my country, the law doesn't define that as violence either. To each their own I guess.
    I can quote Law definitions as well.

    Crime of violence
    Read - CRIME

    The term “crime of violence” means—
    (a) an offense
    (b) any other offense that is a felony
    Read - CRIME / OFFENSE / FELONY


    "The term "violence" is synonymous with "physical force," and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults
    Read - IN RELATION TO ASSAULTS


    Ballantine’s Law Dictionary

    Physical force applied so as to injure or damage [Alexander v State, 40 Tex Crim 395, 411, 49 SW 229, 50 SW 716].
    The snatching or jerking the property of another from his person, where such property is so attached to his person or clothing as to afford resistance, or all antecedent or contemporaneous struggle over the taking of the property will constitute that violence essential for robbery, but a mere filching of loose property from the pocket with no more force than is necessary to lift and remove the property from the pocket is not a taking by force or violence, and is a mere larceny [See State v Parker, 262 Mo 169, 170 SW 1121].
    Read - ROBBERY / LARCENY

    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary

    The force which is employed against common right, against the laws
    Read - AGAINST THE LAWS

    Black’s Law Dictionary

    The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults
    Read - IN RELATION TO ASSAULTS

    [url]https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/---------violent--crimes----------/
    Read - CRIME

    The definition of violent crime
    Read- CRIME

    Often times, violent crimes
    Read- CRIME

    And yet, the definition of the word violence remains the same, as Law cares about legal questions only. Someone legally hunting isn't committing a crime under the law, but the act doesn't stops being covered by the definition of the word violence because of that.
    So, are you suggesting self-defense is a violent crime? I guess you can call hunting violent if you feel like it.

    Self defense is not a violent crime.

    Would you call someone violent if they shot someone attempting to drive their vehicle over kids in a school playground?

    I don't define that as "violence". And in my country, the law doesn't define that as violence either. To each their own I guess.
    All you've said in this thread so far is try to undermine my personal view on the implications of the intent of the inventors of various products, split hairs on the precise technical definitions of "Violent vs Violence" and quoted a huge text wall of law unrelated to the actual discussion at hand.

    But only after you patronize the **** out of OP
    I must have missed the part where people hunt, fight burglars and "fight for your country" by stroking the targets with their guns in a non-violent way.
    Yeah, it's great how that works and we never get shootings on innocents or for imbecile reasons and... oh wait.
    Preach it, brother, can we get an amen? It's the perfect closure for ignoring the time and context in which those words were written, after all.
    So..... do you have an actual view to express here? I have to assume you're in the "delete all guns" category of people, to which I would say-
    I'm pretty sure criminals don't consult the lawbook before deciding how to rob or murder someone, so I don't think that's going to help, no. Even if you someone pressed delete and every firearm on the planet was removed, and every law abiding citizen agreed not to use or make them, you'd simply have groups of criminals making firearms for use against unarmed citizens.

    Maybe some day when we all have tracking chips in our skull, ocular recording implants, full drone anti-privacy coverage of the entire planet, oceans, underground, with GPS tracking for every individual, you could actually remove "the threat" of firearms.
    Are you suggesting something or did you just come to ****post?

12 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •