Gunman opens fire at U.S. church, kills two

[Colpy]

No they're not. A vehicles' original design and intention of use is for transportation, since everybody couldn't own a train and horses were slower in comparison.

A firearm is a weapon, designed to kill, be that an animal or other humans. Just because you can find a couple of cases where someone intentionally used a vehicle to kill someone, doesn't make vehicles a plaque of such magnitude as firearms, which... once again, in case you didn't get it before..... Are Designed To Kill Things.

There is no other alternative use for firearms other then to kill things. You can't open your beer can with them, you can't write an exam with them, you can't fix your damn car with them.... all you can do is shoot things.

And if killing things means a firearm is a tool, then that makes me wonder what kind of business you are in.

.

Oh Bull****.

i have .22 target pistols, incredibly inefficient for killing anything, especially the single shot free pistol. I have an old 30 inch barreled, double apeture sighted single shot .22 target rifle....once again, incredibly inefficient tool for killing. Ever seen a bench rest rifle? Not made for killing.

You shouldn't be so all-inclusive.

And I don't have a problem with guns that were made for combat.

And I've driven armoured trucks designed to run over cars, thus squising the poop out of would-be robbers.

 

[Praxius]

This situation often results in murder charges Prax. My cousin went home after one such incident, and the police were at his door that morning, arresting him for murder. The guy had gone home, laid down on his couch, and promptly died of a brain bleed inflicted from the blows. He's not the first to die that way either.

Violence is violence. Committing violent acts against people is illegal whether you do it with a gun or your fists.

Your survival rates between being shot and being punched are obviously different. The chances of death can still happen, but the chances are far less when compared to being shot.

 

[L Gilbert]

So? Don't go punching or shooting anyone.

 

[Praxius]

Then the individual shouldn't live in societies. The whole idea behind societies is to benefit the mass, not the individual.

And in a democratic society, the majority rules, and if the majority decides they want their rights to shoot people, or not.... that's what get's changed, and the "Rights" are changed.

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Praxius]

SOME vehicles are designed for transportation. Some are designed for the purpose of digging. Some for the purposes of cartage. SOME firearms are designed for the purpose of acquiring food. Some are designed for the purpose of sport (as in target shooting).

Target shooting is just the training for killing things.... hunting your food still equates to killing a living animal, hince a firearms' design is still for killing.

Bullsh|t

Deal with it.

 

[L Gilbert]

yup. Rights are open to interpretation.

 

[Colpy]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

The entire intent of society is to benefit the individual........that is why individual rights outweigh the needs of society........and the concept of "collective rights" is merely the tool of the oppressor.

 

[Praxius]

BTW, the American Right to Bear Arms is a reflection of the right recognized in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which in its turn recognizes the right as an "ancient right". In that they are correct, as the precedents go back to the Magna Carta and beyond, to Canute........

And yet, England still restricts the possesion of firearms much like how Canada does.... I don't see a relation that justifies your cause, since I don't remember hearing of as many gun related crimes in the UK as there are in the US.

 

[Zzarchov]

Then the individual shouldn't live in societies. The whole idea behind societies is to benefit the mass, not the individual.

No its not. Humans are not ants, individuals live in society to benefit themselves. The idea being working together is better than working against each other.

The whole "subsume to the state" mentality was the defining mantra of fascism (as in Italy, not National Socialism)

 

[L Gilbert]

Target shooting is just the training for killing things.... hunting your food still equates to killing a living animal, hince a firearms' design is still for killing.

Good grief, you sure love to display your ignorance.
And a chainsaw is designed for the purpose of killing, too. So are knives and flyswatters.
Target shooting is a sport, like shooting billiards or playing badminton. You don't take a stick designed for playing billards to play baseball with and you don't take a badminton racket to play tennis with.

Deal with it.

I did. You're full of it so I stated it. There, it's dealt with.

 

[lone wolf]

And yet, England still restricts the possesion of firearms much like how Canada does.... I don't see a relation that justifies your cause, since I don't remember hearing of as many gun related crimes in the UK as there are in the US.

Canada uses gun violence as its basis for firearms restriction. They don't want an army raised against them. Why do you think Class 1 explosives (fireworks) are so hard to get. They can be used as detonators for the stuff that REALLY goes BOOM!

 

[Praxius]

Oh Bull****.

i have .22 target pistols, incredibly inefficient for killing anything, especially the single shot free pistol. I have an old 30 inch barreled, double apeture sighted single shot .22 target rifle....once again, incredibly inefficient tool for killing. Ever seen a bench rest rifle? Not made for killing.

You shouldn't be so all-inclusive.

Those guns were designed for small-game hunting. You can still effectivly kill a rabbit at the range of 150 yards or closer, depending.

I've also had older neighbors who took down medium sized deer in their back yard with a .22 rifle.

If you can kill a deer, you can kill a human. If you can kill a rabbit, you can kill a small child.

And I don't have a problem with guns that were made for combat.

They don't belong on urban streets anymore then an RPG or a Tank.

And I've driven armoured trucks designed to run over cars, thus squising the poop out of would-be robbers.

Once again, the issue is firearms, not vehicles. If you care to try and solve the problems of vehicles and related deaths, by all means, start a thread on that.

 

[Colpy]

And yet, England still restricts the possesion of firearms much like how Canada does.... I don't see a relation that justifies your cause, since I don't remember hearing of as many gun related crimes in the UK as there are in the US.

the right is RECOGNIZED, not GRANTED..........in Britain Parliament is supreme, unlike in North America.....therefore Parliament can deny its citizens their rights at its whim.....a fault in the system.

Governments do not create individual rights, nor can they destroy them....they simply are.

 

[Praxius]

Canada uses gun violence as its basis for firearms restriction. They don't want an army raised against them. Why do you think Class 1 explosives (fireworks) are so hard to get. They can be used as detonators for the stuff that REALLY goes BOOM!

I can walk into any store, Superstore, Sobeys, the little newspaper cafe down the road from where I am now, and I can buy dirt cheap fireworks for under $10. I can not be charged for using/setting them off, and if I can't get them in my local store, I can get them at the native shops on the highway for even less.

And once again, fireworks are designed for entertainment purposes, not designed to kill. In other words, you're not supposed to be aiming them at people or sticking them in your mouth.... and robbing banks with fireworks doesn't work so well.

 

[Zzarchov]

Target shooting is just the training for killing things.... hunting your food still equates to killing a living animal, hince a firearms' design is still for killing.



Deal with it.

So? Since when is it wrong to kill things?

I eat bacon, and hamburgers, and steak.

Hell, I eat Corn too, all of those things involve killing.

So what is your problem with me having something that is meant for killing? Are you assuming that I am going to use it to kill people? They aren't designed to kill people. Add to that, with guns that are meant to kill people, no one minded when I was given a C7. And yes, training, I know, good for them. Im all for lisencing guns in the same ways as driving (no lisence, keep to your own property)


In the end this boils down to pre-emptive wrong doing. Do you have a right to tell me to stop doing something, anything (doesn't matter what), that isn't a harm to anyone based on the assumption that I may in the future may commit a crime and be aided by that action.

Is it right to ban Martial Arts? Push comes to shove and if you bulldoze the self defence claims with the same lack of semantics (which is fine btw) you do guns. Martial arts is just training for how to injure and possibley kill another human being with your bare hands.

Unlike guns, Martial arts don't even have a use against animals. They are ONLY for use on human beings.

The same arguements you use about "waiting for a cop" still apply, the same arguements about how unlikely it is you'll be assaulted still apply.

So then it comes down to why wouldn't you ban martial arts? Is it due to the danger they can cause others? (a rifle versus your fist). If so, thats fair..but then what is the line? Rather than just saying "Ban guns, because they are bad" say "Because they are dangerous to this standard, guns are banned as are anything else shown to be equally or more dangerous".

 

[Colpy]

Those guns were designed for small-game hunting. You can still effectivly kill a rabbit at the range of 150 yards or closer, depending.

I've also had older neighbors who took down medium sized deer in their back yard with a .22 rifle.

If you can kill a deer, you can kill a human. If you can kill a rabbit, you can kill a small child.



They don't belong on urban streets anymore then an RPG or a Tank.

Don't change your argument.....a car can take down a rabbit or a deer, but that is not what it was designed for.....neither are bench-rest rifles or target pistols.

If defense is a right (as it is) if weapons are power (as they are) then they belong (with some restriction) in the hands of the people, whom I trust, and you do not.

Who is the democrat?



Once again, the issue is firearms, not vehicles. If you care to try and solve the problems of vehicles and related deaths, by all means, start a thread on that.

You can't define the parameters of the debate simply to suit your own argument.

 

[Zzarchov]

Once again, the issue is firearms, not vehicles. If you care to try and solve the problems of vehicles and related deaths, by all means, start a thread on that.

Actually the thread is about a church shooting, not gun ownership.

If you think banning guns will cut down on gun crime, surely you can see how banning cars will cut down on car crime, alot.

If only professionals operate vehicles, our city streets would be alot less busy, less polluted and safer.

If banning guns stops gun deaths, banning cars will stop car deaths.

 

[Praxius]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Stomping your feet and repeating yourself doesn't make something right..... if that was the case, imagine what the world would be like based on how often I end up repeating myself.

The entire intent of society is to benefit the individual........that is why individual rights outweigh the needs of society........and the concept of "collective rights" is merely the tool of the oppressor.

No, society is to better humans as a collective, and rights given to individuals in a society are given to all in that society so that everything is equal. But if that society feels there is need for change, and the majority agree change is needed, then change will happen.

If what you claim was true, then Bush couldn't have possibly gotten away with everything he did, such as the Patriot Act, phone/internet tapping, etc. as his decisions stomped all over those rights you are trying to defend.

And if one man can toss away those rights, I'm pretty sure an entire population can do the same.

 

[lone wolf]

I can walk into any store, Superstore, Sobeys, the little newspaper cafe down the road from where I am now, and I can buy dirt cheap fireworks for under $10. I can not be charged for using/setting them off, and if I can't get them in my local store, I can get them at the native shops on the highway for even less.

And once again, fireworks are designed for entertainment purposes, not designed to kill. In other words, you're not supposed to be aiming them at people or sticking them in your mouth.... and robbing banks with fireworks doesn't work so well.

They're explosives ... and the Jeep and Hummer both have military purpose - carrying people into battle so they can KILL. You can't steer a debate Pax....

 

[Praxius]

the right is RECOGNIZED, not GRANTED..........in Britain Parliament is supreme, unlike in North America.....therefore Parliament can deny its citizens their rights at its whim.....a fault in the system.

I don't see it as a fault.

Governments do not create individual rights, nor can they destroy them....they simply are.

Yes they do.... who else does when it comes to a society? Who made the decision to give people the right to bear arms? Who told us that there are no homosexuals in Iran? Do you think China and North Korea give a rats ass about the rights our societies deemed were important?

No... because our ways are not absolute, and neither are their ways.

We as humans set up the rules that most accept as being necissary and those who relate to that way of life follow it, while others follow another way of life. Depending on the way of life you wish to live and where, you give up certain freedomes and rights for other freedoms and rights. The only way to avoid this, is to live outside of society and on your own.

Just because humans follow something for hundreds of years, doesn't make it right..... take religions for example.