The Glamorization of Murder

[Behemoth]

Can people please stop acting like guns aren't items designed specifically for inflicting serious bodily harm to other living things. It's dumb. Guns are scary, they are supposed to be...
Stop treating people like they are stupid for being scared of something that's intended to kill or severly injur living things. It's not helping your case to be so non chalet about the seriousness of owning and handling a deadly weapon. It's a weapon!!! You can not compare a gun to ALL books because books in general are not weapons. Fertilizer is not a weapon, it can only be used incorrectly to its intent AS a weapon if someone knows how but is not manufactured to be so.


A gun is a weapon. It was made to be a weapon. It has no other purpose than shooting living things.
Stop pretending your gun is a spoon

The problem is that doesn't change the fundamental argument. You can't erode one right without eroding the other, and you can't justify restricting one item when others have far greater uses. More people die to hammers than rifles. The statement 'well, hammers aren't designed to hurt people' is functionally irrelevant. It's an arbitrary point, one that only works if you're looking for a reason to justify banning guns but not something else, even though the something else is statistically more deadly.

Respecting and having a healthy 'fear' is not the same as thinking guns are 'scary' and being ignorant of them. I get that folks are uncomfortable with weapons, and that's ok. I'm not going to try to force them to handle guns if they don't want to. However, when they start projecting their fears and insecurities, and seek to impose those on others, I begin to take issue.

 

[JoleneBrody]

@JoleneBrody "Why spoons???" "Because it will hurt more!!"
i'm sorry but that's all i could think about oh my god lmao
spoons are deadly weapons

Hahahaha yes! One of my favorite movie scenes ever and totally what I was thinking of! *high five*

 

[justjoinedtopost]

All I really get from this is you're an authoritarian with no respect for personal liberty or freedom.

I'm actually not.

I'm an individual who has had a belly full of listening to people howl about their favorite amendment any time the subject of guns (or religion) comes up. Liberty and freedom aren't things that were written down for us over 200 years ago.

 

[JoleneBrody]

The problem is that doesn't change the fundamental argument. You can't erode one right without eroding the other, and you can't justify restricting one item when others have far greater uses. More people die to hammers than rifles. The statement 'well, hammers aren't designed to hurt people' is functionally irrelevant. It's an arbitrary point, one that only works if you're looking for a reason to justify banning guns but not something else, even though the something else is statistically more deadly.

Respecting and having a healthy 'fear' is not the same as thinking guns are 'scary' and being ignorant of them. I get that folks are uncomfortable with weapons, and that's ok. I'm not going to try to force them to handle guns if they don't want to. However, when they start projecting their fears and insecurities, and seek to impose those on others, I begin to take issue.

The hammer argument really isn't true. Just FYI. It's a common quote I know gun lovers like to use, but factually it's not accurate and only helps to further muddy your stance and the ability to find compromise between two sides. Which is fundamentally nessicary for society to function. We're really bad at that lately...

But my point went over your head so whatever.

I own guns, anyone is welcome to think they are scary because they are and I'm not going to talk down to them for having an opinion about them based on a desire to protect themselves, let alone speak down to them for those pretty reasonable feelings. Doing so will not convince them I am worth listening too, only that I myself am also kinda scary. Most of the arguments given strongly in favor of guns here have made the writer look kinda scary, and not worth listening to.

The vast majority of murders in the U.S are committed using a gun. Deal with it and let's move forward.

 

[Behemoth]

The hammer argument really isn't true. Just FYI. It's a common quote I know gun lovers like to use, but factually it's not accurate and only helps to further muddy your stance and the ability to find compromise between two sides. Which is fundamentally nessicary for society to function. We're really bad at that lately...

But my point went over your head so whatever.

I own guns, anyone is welcome to think they are scary because they are and I'm not going to talk down to them for having an opinion about them based on a desire to protect themselves, let alone speak down to them for those pretty reasonable feelings. Doing so will not convince them I am worth listening too, only that I myself am also kinda scary. Most of the arguments given strongly in favor of guns here have made the writer look kinda scary, and not worth listening to.

The vast majority of murders in the U.S are committed using a gun. Deal with it and let's move forward.

Deaths by Rifle in 2014: 248
Deaths by Blunt Object: 435

Listen, I DO get what you are saying, but your argument is, again, just an appeal to emotion. It 'sounds scary' is not a valid reason for disregarding an argument.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Deaths by Rifle in 2014: 248
Deaths by Blunt Object: 435

Listen, I DO get what you are saying, but your argument is, again, just an appeal to emotion. It 'sounds scary' is not a valid reason for disregarding an argument.

A rifle is not all guns, a "blunt object" is not just hammers.

But thanks for making my point further I guess

And no, you didn't get what I was saying.

 

[Behemoth]

Except I legit said rifles kill less than hammer, which, fair, does mean more than that in blunt objects, but the point I was making is rifles are literally not even on the real top list of things. :/

And this, again, doesn't even get into the legitimacy of 'scary.'

I'm actually not.

I'm an individual who has had a belly full of listening to people howl about their favorite amendment any time the subject of guns (or religion) comes up. Liberty and freedom aren't things that were written down for us over 200 years ago.

Funny, I pointed out that the rights go beyond the constitution, and you still are talking about restricting rights, so, yes, you're an authoritarian.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Funny, I pointed out that the rights go beyond the constitution, and you still are talking about restricting rights, so, yes, you're an authoritarian.

If you say so. Considering this is coming from someone who hints a hammer is on par with a rifle when it comes to carrying out a MCI, I'm not really bothered.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Except I legit said rifles kill less than hammer, which, fair, does mean more than that in blunt objects, but the point I was making is rifles are literally not even on the real top list of things. :/

And this, again, doesn't even get into the legitimacy of 'scary.'



Funny, I pointed out that the rights go beyond the constitution, and you still are talking about restricting rights, so, yes, you're an authoritarian.

You compared only one type of firearm to a broad spectrum of types of weapon... That makes no sense. It would make sense to compare firearms to blunt objects as a whole though..: but those numbers wouldn't make your argument look better.

 

[Behemoth]

You compared only one type of firearm to a broad spectrum of types of weapon... That makes no sense. It would make sense to compare firearms to blunt objects as a whole though..: but those numbers wouldn't make your argument look better.

Not particularly, because rifle and blunt object are broad types of weapon. It does not make sense to compare 'firearms' because firearms is an extremely broad category, and breaking it down by type makes sense, which is precisely why they do it in crime statistics.

 

[JoleneBrody]

specifying rifle only stats in response to a post about guns as a whole (even if it didn't include the incorrect and misleading hammer) still doesn't make sense. My post was about guns as a whole, not just rifles.

 

[Behemoth]

The point I was making was that the push to ban rifles makes no sense given the numbers, as part of a broader statement on how folks act out of ignorance. You're being exceptionally obtuse here for no real reason, and your core point was bad anyway because it was based in this idea that somehow folks being 'scared' of guns was in any way a legitimate response or needs to be respected. Being scared due to ignorance of guns is not the same as having a healthy respect, even fear, of them.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

One thing I don't get is how people get so hateful on the topic of gun control. Personally, I think both sides make sense, and can understand both perspectives quite well. The pro-gun control movement should be able to see why others fear rights being taken away, and the pro-gun movement should be able to understand why some people don't want their neighbors in possession of murder machines. We all want less deaths; we simply disagree on how to make that happen. The fact that we can agree on that should be the starting line in being able to try to see each other's point of view.

 

[JoleneBrody]

If the point went any further over your head it would be the space station.

 

[JoleneBrody]

One thing I don't get is how people get so hateful on the topic of gun control. Personally, I think both sides make sense, and can understand both perspectives quite well. The pro-gun control movement should be able to see why others fear rights being taken away, and the pro-gun movement should be able to understand why some people don't want their neighbors in possession of murder machines. We all want less deaths; we simply disagree on how to make that happen. The fact that we can agree on that should be the starting line in being able to try to see each other's point of view.

THISSSSSSSS FOR THE LOVE OF GLOB THIS!

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Can people please stop acting like guns aren't items designed specifically for inflicting serious bodily harm to other living things. It's dumb. Guns are scary, they are supposed to be...
Stop treating people like they are stupid for being scared of something that's intended to kill or severly injur living things. It's not helping your case to be so non chalet about the seriousness of owning and handling a deadly weapon. It's a weapon!!! You can not compare a gun to ALL books because books in general are not weapons. Fertilizer is not a weapon, it can only be used incorrectly to its intent AS a weapon if someone knows how but is not manufactured to be so.


A gun is a weapon. It was made to be a weapon. It has no other purpose than shooting living things.
Stop pretending your gun is a spoon

I think this is where we fundamentally differ, on every point you just made there.

Guns today CAN be for inflicting harm to others, but they also can be designed for many other things. They can be a deterrent without ever being fired. They can be self protection. They can be protection for your loved ones. They can be a source of gathering food. They can be entertainment. They can be used in sporting events, like the Olympics.

Guns are not scary. I've never been scared of a gun in my life. A gun sitting on a table will not magically jump up and hurt you. That's the same as being afraid of a piece of rope because it can be tied into a noose. Or maybe a butchers knife. After all a knife has no other purpose except to cut you, right? It's stupid. A matches only purpose in life is to burn. Shall we take away all matches lest an arson burn a house down? No, objects are not scary. That's completely irrational. However, the people holding the gun, knife, rope, match; they can be scary at times.

As for being nonchalant about it. I was merely trying to use satire to point out the selective reasoning used in peoples fear of guns. The parallel to books is actually a perfect one. In every respect. Guns CAN be used as a weapon to kill. Fertilizer CAN be used the same way. Not all fertilizer is, the same as not all guns are. They are both simply tools that can be used for harm, or for good. It depends on the person wielding those tools.

And along the books line of thought, I submit it's just as easy, if not easier, for anyone to enroll in a community college chemistry course than it is to buy a gun. You can learn to make bombs there that are very efficient killers. In fact most chemistry students routinely do make a bomb in their very first course. And they do it from simple chemicals available in any pharmacy or walmart, like ammonia and iodine. No fertilizer needed (although ammonia is a fertilizer too). Will you now be scared of your cleaning and first aid supplies too?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

FOR THE LOVE OF GLOB THIS!

Sorry, just had to chuckle. You know why.

 

[Behemoth]

If the point went any further over your head it would be the space station.

I mean, ok, you can keep thinking that if you want, I guess.

THISSSSSSSS FOR THE LOVE OF GLOB THIS!

Ironic.

One thing I don't get is how people get so hateful on the topic of gun control. Personally, I think both sides make sense, and can understand both perspectives quite well. The pro-gun control movement should be able to see why others fear rights being taken away, and the pro-gun movement should be able to understand why some people don't want their neighbors in possession of murder machines. We all want less deaths; we simply disagree on how to make that happen. The fact that we can agree on that should be the starting line in being able to try to see each other's point of view.

The problem is this idea somehow the other side doesn't get it. I understand entirely the fears, the problem is, that fear does not trump rights, and I reject the very nature of calling guns 'murder machines.' :/

 

[JerryBoBerry]

The pro-gun control movement should be able to see why others fear rights being taken away, and the pro-gun movement should be able to understand why some people don't want their neighbors in possession of murder machines.

I personally can understand that. But I think that's a line in the sand type thing. Most people who own guns will happily agree they are not for everyone, and not everyone should have them. And we will never try to force someone to own one. That's their right. But as law abiding citizens, it's our right to decide for ourselves if we want one.

As the old saying goes, your rights end where mine begin.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

You can learn to make bombs there that are very efficient killers. In fact most chemistry students routinely do make a bomb in their very first course. And they do it from simple chemicals available in any pharmacy or walmart, like ammonia and iodine. No fertilizer needed (although ammonia is a fertilizer too). Will you now be scared of your cleaning and first aid supplies too?

Let's flip the absurdity around. If this is the case, let's deregulate explosives. Let's make it a Constitutional right. You can use dynamite to tunnel through mountains, blow stumps out of your yard, or go fishing. It has legitimate uses.

Therefore, no regulation of dynamite. It's a slippery slope! Liberty! Freedom!

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Let's flip the absurdity around. If this is the case, let's deregulate explosives. Let's make it a Constitutional right. You can use dynamite to tunnel through mountains, blow stumps out of your yard, or go fishing. It has legitimate uses.

Therefore, no regulation of dynamite. It's a slippery slope! Liberty! Freedom!

You realize guns are highly regulated. And I have not seen anyone in this entire thread argue for deregulation of firearms. Your point makes zero sense.

 

[Behemoth]

Let's flip the absurdity around. If this is the case, let's deregulate explosives. Let's make it a Constitutional right. You can use dynamite to tunnel through mountains, blow stumps out of your yard, or go fishing. It has legitimate uses.

Therefore, no regulation of dynamite. It's a slippery slope! Liberty! Freedom!

This is not an argument.

 

[Guy]

You realize guns are highly regulated. And I have not seen anyone in this entire thread argue for deregulation of firearms. Your point makes zero sense.

Guns are not highly regulated. If they were, we wouldn't have the gun show loophole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

 

[Behemoth]

Guns are not highly regulated. If they were, we wouldn't have the gun show loophole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Except even if you follow that link, you'll find its a political term, and actually, no, not a real thing. The supposed 'gun show loophole' has actually nothing to do with gun shows. It has to do with the fact that a private individual (IE: not someone who sells guns for a living) can sell a gun to another private individual without getting a background check done. This is because access to background checks is very difficult and the state has no place to dictate you selling your property in that way. Note, it's STILL ILLEGAL to sell a gun to someone who is not legally allowed to OWN a gun.

Further, do you even know what is required to buy a gun?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

You realize guns are highly regulated. And I have not seen anyone in this entire thread argue for deregulation of firearms. Your point makes zero sense.

First of all, apologies for my faux pas post, I hope i deleted it before anyone saw it; I don't think I could bear the shame. I will now try to respond without a boner in one hand.

The fifth post of this thread, Fandango wondered aloud if something couldn't be done about the easy availibility of firearms. Two posts later, you responded from an opposing position. If this wasn't a gun regulation discussion, I don't know what is.

I have both bought and sold guns. It is not highly regulated at all. To say the situation in this country is otherwise is either disengenuous, delusional, or both. I'm calling bullshit on your "highly regulated" comment.

I am think firearms in this country need to be highly regulated (and I don't mean 9 bullets instead of 10, I mean real regulation), and for the same reasons that I want dynamite highly regulated. Even if you can figure out how to build a bomb without it, I still don't want TNT being bought and sold between neighbors.

Further, do you even know what is required to buy a gun?

A little bit of money. That's all.

This is not an argument.

Disappointed?

 

[Guy]

First of all, apologies for my faux pas post, I hope i deleted it before anyone saw it; I don't think I could bear the shame. I will now try to respond without a boner in one hand.

The fifth post of this thread, Fandango wondered aloud if something couldn't be done about the easy availibility of firearms. Two posts later, you responded from an opposing position. If this wasn't a gun regulation discussion, I don't know what is.

I have both bought and sold guns. It is not highly regulated at all. To say the situation in this country is otherwise is either disengenuous, delusional, or both. I'm calling bullshit on your "highly regulated" comment.

I am think firearms in this country need to be highly regulated (and I don't mean 9 bullets instead of 10, I mean real regulation), and for the same reasons that I want dynamite highly regulated. Even if you can figure out how to build a bomb without it, I still don't want TNT being bought and sold between neighbors.

A little bit of money. That's all.
Disappointed?

DId you work at a gun store?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

DId you work at a gun store?

No Guy.

 

[Behemoth]

I have both bought and sold guns. It is not highly regulated at all. To say the situation in this country is otherwise is either disengenuous, delusional, or both. I'm calling bullshit on your "highly regulated" comment.

I am think firearms in this country need to be highly regulated (and I don't mean 9 bullets instead of 10, I mean real regulation), and for the same reasons that I want dynamite highly regulated. Even if you can figure out how to build a bomb without it, I still don't want TNT being bought and sold between neighbors.

A little bit of money. That's all.

Well, and a background check. I'm curious what else you'd want. Then again, I'm curious, again, how you can establish any of this, as in, where do you say there is an authority to do any of this?

Disappointed?

No, I'm just pointing out it's not an argument. You saying it would be wild and outlandish does not an argument make. But you don't do that. You've never done it. You don't rationally establish any of your arguments, you show contempt for the concept of liberty and freedom, and of rights. You seem to care about what you want, but not what is ethically or rationally justified.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Well, and a background check. I'm curious what else you'd want.

So if someone has a little bit of money, they will be unable to purchase a firearm legally without a background check?

 

[Behemoth]

So if someone has a little bit of money, they will be unable to purchase a firearm legally without a background check?

With a little bit of money, you can buy anything, including a long list of drugs and other items or services the government says you shouldn't have. I'm not entirely sure what your point is?