Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Spizike9

macrumors regular
Nov 7, 2011
216
390
No. Really. All the same function of guns. Your attempt to dodge that doesn’t change anything.
[doublepost=1568171919][/doublepost]

What is sport shooting? There is nothing about shooting that makes it a sport.

Don’t talk about nudity like it is bad but murder is ok. You justify holding the power to kill by calling it “protection”. That’s terrible. Smith and Weston is just another division of RJ Reynolds.


Look up 3 gun competition. Or have you ever heard the term sporting clays? I never once said murder is ok and nudity is bad. Almost all pornography involves a lot more than just a naked guy or girl. Apparently it’s wrong for me to hold the power to kill and call it “protection” yet it’s 100% ok for you to drive the power to kill because it’s ”multi purpose.” I’m 100% willing to give up my firearms as soon as you’re 100% willing to give up your alcohol, your 1st amendment rights, and you can guarantee me that every criminal out there will give up their guns and other weapons and will stop committing crime. As well as you can guarantee me that our government won’t go full commie and try to infringe our rights like has happened many times over the course of history in countries around the world.

And yes it is 100% ok for me “hold the power to kill” and call it protection. Protecting myself and my family is my God given right that our founding fathers saw was so important that they actually made it part of our constitution. If you don’t like freedom there’s plenty of other countries out there I’m sure you move to.
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
Well all my guns MUST be broken because all but 8 or 9 I know for a fact have never killed anything. At last count I own almost a gun for every day of the year...

A gun doesn’t have to have been used to kill to change that it was designed with the intent to do so. Most people with guns have either killed with it or actively practice to do so.
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
Look up 3 gun competition. Or have you ever heard the term sporting clays? I never once said murder is ok and nudity is bad. Almost all pornography involves a lot more than just a naked guy or girl. Apparently it’s wrong for me to hold the power to kill and call it “protection” yet it’s 100% ok for you to drive the power to kill because it’s ”multi purpose.” I’m 100% willing to give up my firearms as soon as you’re 100% willing to give up your alcohol, your 1st amendment rights, and you can guarantee me that every criminal out there will give up their guns and other weapons and will stop committing crime. As well as you can guarantee me that our government won’t go full commie and try to infringe our rights like has happened many times over the course of history in countries around the world.

And yes it is 100% ok for me “hold the power to kill” and call it protection. Protecting myself and my family is my God given right that our founding fathers saw was so important that they actually made it part of our constitution. If you don’t like freedom there’s plenty of other countries out there I’m sure you move to.

There is a huge difference between accidentally killing and actively buying something to kill with and practicing to improve the likelihood you will be successful.

And you have no God given rights. Those “rights” were granted by people in power looking to stay in power. We’re still dealing with the limited definition of what they considered a person. Keep in mind that these founding fathers had previously killed and were looking to ensure they could continue to do so. Your dilutions should not increase the risk of death other people face trying to get gas. You’re not going to stop the military from entering your home just because you own a gun. You’re going to slow them down by voting to cut their funding and taking away the resources they have to do so.

And let’s be clear, pornography is defined by how something used not what it is. Two people having sex on camera is not pornography. It only becomes pornography when it is used by someone to achieve sexual pleasure. Which is why some people have considered Facebook a pornography site. I guess if you get such pleasure from guns you could call photos of them pornography too.
 
Last edited:

SteveW928

macrumors 68000
May 28, 2010
1,834
1,380
Victoria, B.C. Canada
I don't know what MSM is but I take a guess that you refer the media's manipulation.
Anyway, of course USA is the leading in gun deaths. How can you even question that?

MSM = mainstream media. But, yes, the fear mongering, propaganda, misinformation, etc. propagated through most of the big media outlets.

I think that BBC article is an example, as the data seems pretty cherry-picked to tell the story they wanted to tell. If you just pick certain countries and then say the USA is on top (but leave out a whole bunch of other countries)... cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Note, I'm not arguing that the gun-death-rate per capita in the USA isn't far too high, but that gun ownership isn't the driving factor.

In Switzerland, every man old enough to serve in the army (and not a criminal, mad, etc. ) has a gun and ammunition in his home, in case the country is invaded. The ammunition is counted. You don't want to know how big the **** is that you find yourself in if one single piece of ammunition is missing.

Yeah, I've heard that too. But, I don't think getting in trouble because you shot someone and bullets were missing is the reason there aren't a bunch of mass murders in Switzerland. The point was that gun density doesn't have much impact on how many people kill each other (or themselves), but I suppose it impacts the method.

All of those functions of guns are the same.

...

You justify holding the power to kill by calling it “protection”.

Ok, so do you see any difference between a police officer or soldier killing someone evil vs a murderer killing an innocent person? There is a difference between killing and murder.

And you have no God given rights. Those “rights” were granted by people in power looking to stay in power.

We'd better hope not. If that's the case, then the Nazis should never have been convicted of war-crimes, and we had no right to say what they were doing was wrong or interfere.

You’re not going to stop the military from entering your home just because you own a gun.

Maybe, maybe not. But, if all the gun-owning citizens revolted in any kind of organized manner, I don't think the military would stand in the way. And, even if they did, while it wouldn't be like it was when the country was founded, I think the government would end up being toppled.
 

Freida

Suspended
Oct 22, 2010
4,077
5,868
YES IT IS! If you don't own a gun then you can't kill someone (or yourself) with a gun. Guns should be very difficult to get (just like in europe) and not as simple as in USA.

Anyway, I'm not getting into this again. Its pointless. Most Americans are so obsessed with their right to own a gun that they will argue this to death.


Note, I'm not arguing that the gun-death-rate per capita in the USA isn't far too high, but that gun ownership isn't the driving factor.
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
I can say most buy a gun hoping to never need to use it on another human being.

But many plan to kill animals with it.

[doublepost=1568345242][/doublepost]
Ok, so do you see any difference between a police officer or soldier killing someone evil vs a murderer killing an innocent person? There is a difference between killing and murder.

No. First off, neither a police officer or soldier are qualified nor authorized to call someone evil. Secondly, I don't see a difference between killing a person for their watch or killing a rabbit for their fur.

We'd better hope not. If that's the case, then the Nazis should never have been convicted of war-crimes, and we had no right to say what they were doing was wrong or interfere.

I mean if you are going to go off of founding fathers than only while male landowners should have guns since they are the only ones that qualify as a person. And throwing in "God" to support a claim just makes me sick. God never said "don't kill unless you have to."

Maybe, maybe not. But, if all the gun-owning citizens revolted in any kind of organized manner, I don't think the military would stand in the way. And, even if they did, while it wouldn't be like it was when the country was founded, I think the government would end up being toppled.

If the gun owner organized bullets would stop being sold and chemical warfare would make the streets of Topeka pretty barren.
 
Last edited:

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
Yep, and nothing wrong with hunting. Venison is hard to beat. I take it you must be a vegan then?

Everything is wrong with hunting. You are not that good of a shot to kill humanely. I’m no vegan but killing under the supervision of someone who knows how to do it correctly, and has appropriate equipment, is not the same as shooting from 100 yards out.
 
Last edited:

tshrimp

macrumors 6502
Mar 30, 2012
412
3,434
Everything is wrong with hunting. You are not that good of a shot to kill humanely. I’m no vegan but killing under the supervision of someone who knows how to do it correctly, and has appropriate equipment, is not the same as shooting from 100 yards out.

You are making a judgement that is false. Dropping a deer, hog, etc at 100 yards "humanely" is not this crazy unattainable task you make it out to be. Hunters typically know how to do it "correctly"....Especially if you get this scope with this app ;).

Most hunters love animals and do everything they can to never cause suffering of a living being. In reality hunting is the most ethical way.

"Hunting is the most self-sustainable you can get; hunting gives you the freshest, healthiest and most ethically-killed meat."


[doublepost=1568400511][/doublepost]
He prefers the term soy boy.

People who don't hunt or own guns typically do not understand. It is hard to fault @4jasontv as he/she is probably not a hunter or shooter. Just watch all the videos from people trying to outlaw both. You can always tell they don't understand the topic they are talking about.

Check out CNN's Don Lemon when he tries to talk about guns.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...74018616F993BFA6D55C74018616F993BFA&FORM=VIRE
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
You are making a judgement that is false. Dropping a deer, hog, etc at 100 yards "humanely" is not this crazy unattainable task you make it out to be. Hunters typically know how to do it "correctly"....Especially if you get this scope with this app ;).

Most hunters love animals and do everything they can to never cause suffering of a living being. In reality hunting is the most ethical way.

"Hunting is the most self-sustainable you can get; hunting gives you the freshest, healthiest and most ethically-killed meat."


[doublepost=1568400511][/doublepost]

People who don't hunt or own guns typically do not understand. It is hard to fault @4jasontv as he/she is probably not a hunter or shooter. Just watch all the videos from people trying to outlaw both. You can always tell they don't understand the topic they are talking about.

Check out CNN's Don Lemon when he tries to talk about guns.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...74018616F993BFA6D55C74018616F993BFA&FORM=VIRE

The problem is, if you miss by even an inch the animal will suffer. Most hunters don’t kill instantly. There are seconds to minutes were the animal suffers. I’m not questioning intent to prevent suffering, but that doesn’t translate to doing it correctly. Look at all the people feeding their dogs grain free diets, despite their vet telling them not to, because they think they know better. The road is paved with good intentions and someone thinking that they can handle gun ownership simply isn’t sufficient.
 

SteveW928

macrumors 68000
May 28, 2010
1,834
1,380
Victoria, B.C. Canada
YES IT IS! If you don't own a gun then you can't kill someone (or yourself) with a gun. Guns should be very difficult to get (just like in europe) and not as simple as in USA.

Anyway, I'm not getting into this again. Its pointless. Most Americans are so obsessed with their right to own a gun that they will argue this to death.

You seem to be missing the point. (Purposely?)
Americans have always had guns, but these kind of mass shootings are a relatively new thing. What has changed? (If you'd like, I can give you a few hints.)

And, it isn't the Americans are obsessed with guns. I used to target practice, but currently have no gun(s). Some people do enjoy them as a hobby, while others use them for hunting, etc. But, it isn't the typical gun enthusiast you need to worry about.

Most of the mass shootings were committed by someone who obtained the gun illegally (ie. they bypassed the existing laws). Second, even if all the guns could be collected from normal citizens, do you realize the police in the USA lose almost 200k guns each year?

Third, as was mentioned before, the 'obsession' has to do with the origins of the country, and the recognition that all the other rights the USA hinge on keeping the government from getting out of control. Think of it more as a duty than an obsession.

No. First off, neither a police officer or soldier are qualified nor authorized to call someone evil.

Those were my terms, but I think you're trying to play games with me now. If someone intended to kill you or one of your family members, should the police (or military) be able to use those guns to help protect you? Or, should we just let that person kill you or your loved ones (we'll leave whether they are evil or not out of the picture, then)?

Secondly, I don't see a difference between killing a person for their watch or killing a rabbit for their fur.

I do, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my points.


I mean if you are going to go off of founding fathers than only while male landowners should have guns since they are the only ones that qualify as a person.

I don't think that is accurate, but even if it were, what's the point (in the context of this debate)? Do the founding fathers have to be flawless in everything for the Constitutional rights to exist and be protected?

And throwing in "God" to support a claim just makes me sick. God never said "don't kill unless you have to."

I think you were the one who (rightly) brought up that our rights are God-given. But, since I'm a theologian, I suppose that gives me some amount of credibility to toss that in if I should like.

God said we're not to murder. God didn't say we're not to kill.

(BTW, my degree in theology concentrated in the area of apologetics... so if you want to go there, you've been warned ;) )

If the gun owner organized bullets would stop being sold and chemical warfare would make the streets of Topeka pretty barren.

Yes, that would become an issue in a prolonged conflict. I'm imagining there is plenty of ammo in the hands of gun-owners that it wouldn't be an issue for a while. I'm certainly no expert in such things, but I can't imagine any kind of prolonged civil war between the USA government/military and the citizens. Once it became clear what was going on, would any honorable military people actually protect the gov't idiots? They'd probably join in.[/QUOTE]
 

tshrimp

macrumors 6502
Mar 30, 2012
412
3,434
The problem is, if you miss by even an inch the animal will suffer. Most hunters don’t kill instantly. There are seconds to minutes were the animal suffers. I’m not questioning intent to prevent suffering, but that doesn’t translate to doing it correctly. Look at all the people feeding their dogs grain free diets, despite their vet telling them not to, because they think they know better. The road is paved with good intentions and someone thinking that they can handle gun ownership simply isn’t sufficient.

I can tell you are not familiar with guns or hunting (and that is cool. Not everyone's cup of tea). I am guessing you ignored my link where hunting is considered one of the most human ways an animal can die, or chose to ignore. PETA will probably agree with you though, but then they euthanize more domestic animals than anyone :mad:.
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
I can tell you are not familiar with guns or hunting (and that is cool. Not everyone's cup of tea). I am guessing you ignored my link where hunting is considered one of the most human ways an animal can die, or chose to ignore. PETA will probably agree with you though, but then they euthanize more domestic animals than anyone :mad:.

I am familiar and that’s why I didn’t waiver with my claim. Most hunters do not have the precision of a captive bolt placed directly on the head. Even experts ranchers slip when they have cattle in a shoot. So no, hunting is NOT the most humane way an animal can die.
 

tshrimp

macrumors 6502
Mar 30, 2012
412
3,434
I am familiar and that’s why I didn’t waiver with my claim. Most hunters do not have the precision of a captive bolt placed directly on the head. Even experts ranchers slip when they have cattle in a shoot. So no, hunting is NOT the most humane way an animal can die.

What is then? Enlighten us with your wisdom and expertise. Since my links apparently do not agree with your perspective then I am open to you changing my mind.
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
What is then? Enlighten us with your wisdom and expertise. Since my links apparently do not agree with your perspective then I am open to you changing my mind.
A captive bolt handled by a trained professional in a stress free environment. Read some of Temple Grandin‘s work. Heck, give her a call, I bet she would be happy to explain it over the phone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.