Put the gun in a closet and leave it there for 4-5 years and see how many people it kills. Before guns were invented people found other ways to do the dirty deed. Guns just make it easier and quicker to kill some or many people.
Kansas Shooting: Guns don't kill people
Since we don't have a P&R section and I don't believe anyone has posted in favor of one, please stay away from these types of topics.
This is NOT a political topic at all and hasn't been made so in here. Just because an issue becomes politicized doesn't mean it's political. This issue isn't. It is an ISSUE, period...worthy of non political discussion which is exactly what it has been (so far).
I want to get to the heart of "guns don't kill people" as reasoning for people to have them. It's beyond ridiculous when held up to the light. What purpose does a gun serve other than KILLING? If I had a knife, I could make a sandwich with it, cut my steak at dinner, slice up some vegetables. A knife has a purpose other than killing. A gun? I don't recall the last time I made a sandwich or cut a steak or vegetable with a gun. A gun's purpose and objective is clear...KILLING...PERIOD. That issue tries getting obfuscated but I refuse to let it be. A gun is made and owned to KILL someone. Ironically, that is what guns are used for way too often in this country and around the world. Same goes for backpacks filled with explosives...but, but backpacks with explosives don't kill anyone...the person wearing it does...it's that person's fault. Why are we blaming a backpack full of explosives? I added some atomic bomb commentary. They don't kill anyone, right? There would be no reason to rid the world of bombs as they don't kill anyone. A missile silo should be in every town...that protection angle would really bring people comfort, no?
See, it's ridiculous to utter "guns don't kill people" after a mass shooting. I fail to comprehend that person's logic in the slightest because that is the purpose of a gun in the first place...TO KILL. You can argue the type of killing (self defense vs. mass shootings) but you sure can't argue that a gun is TO KILL which is happening more and more these days.
- Edited
Okay, fine..........yet very easily can become political, it certainly did at FGI and I hear this topic evolve into politics every week.
I could say more but won't and only read the first line of this post and the title, which was enough for me.
Over and out.
Enjoy your thread.
- Edited
Oh, it's political alright. "Would it make you feel any better if they'dve been pushed out of Windows".
LBlack14
Yes, it would, head first or feet first ? JK.........
People like to argue over the smallest silly things, battles and wars been fought over these inconsequential matters.
Eventually, our society will have the "earned credit" for everything from monetary value to other privileges, like driver's license and such. I won't see it but that's probably my great great grand kids will realize.
Issues are issues... eventually the big hot button ones eventually get politicized. However, I don't see or want any talk of "The President"... The R's...The D's...etc. That is not germane to the phrase: Guns don't kill people. That is not a political statement. It is a way of thinking held by people...a completely non political person might think it or not think it. I just want to understand how this is used by people who claim it.
If I go to pickup my kids at school tomorrow and someone has gone and shot up the school leaving multiple children dead, the last thing I want someone to be telling me is that "guns don't kill people". I would find that wholly offensive. I wouldn't hear "Cars don't kill people" when someone is killed by a drunk driver nor would it make any sense. Further, i wouldn't want someone telling me that "Alcohol doesn't kill people" when in this case the combo of person who was fueled by alcohol behind the wheel of a car was the reason my loved one was killed. The insensitive things people want to selfishly cling to in the midst of your personal tragedy is disgusting.
When I read the story of Cedric Ford I was horrified. I'm not desensitized to the fact that people who went to work ended up dead because some guy goes off with an AK 47. I don't think about politics. I think about those who utter the phrase "guns don't kill people" and I internalize it as to how I would feel if it was my brother, father or friend who went to work and got gunned downed by an AK 47 only to hear that "guns don't kill people". Those selfish idiots worried about their personal rights while my loved one is dead because some idiot had an AK.
To LB...a window isn't put into a building or home so someone can be thrown out of it as to kill them. A window has a perfectly innocuous reason for being. A gun? LOL. A gun has one reason for being...TO KILL. Shoot, explosives have more sensical reasons for being as they can be used for non lethal reasons. I'm trying to think of valid uses for guns other than killing. Target practice so you can better aim to kill someone? So, when a person purchases an AK 47 what would the reasoning be for doing so? "I want protection!" Protection against what? Oh, other people with guns? I get it and that's why I'm not against owning guns. There are too many out there and I can understand the mindset that thinks if someone has one and can hurt me, I want one to make it fair so I can fight back. Perfectly plausible reasoning. I would desire a world where there were no guns, period, but I realize that's not going to happen so owning a gun makes perfect sense. I'm just bamboozled by the insensitivity of people on the heels of a major tragedy by hearing "guns don't kill people".
- Edited
Let me be the first to be tossed from the forum. Owning a firearm ain't a privilege. It is an inherent natural and civil right. Predating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that protect that right. It's called Liberty. If you don't like it move your fearful ass to some gun control Utopia like the UK.
The UK has banned guns, hell, they've even banned self-defence. Now there is movement to ban knives.
LOOK IT UP!
The statement IS true, guns don't kill people, people do. Yes it was mentioned quickly. It was less quick than the choice of gun control proponents to dance in the blood of the victims.
If you wish to not be victim, then you need to choose to not cower in a corner and pray to whatever god you believe in that you aren't found by the killer.
See what I did there? The gun can't find you all by itself!
Edit: If you don't want to own a gun, fine. If you think that guns are evil, get over it. Guns provide. Protection, food, and security.
Your 'right' of free speech should not be a 'born' right either. You should have to prove your ability to use words safely.
Time to put the shoe on the other foot!
- Edited
Now, we're talking. You are PERFECT for this topic.
I see the side issues you addressed above and flippantly slipped in the phrase there at the end.
What is a gun used for? Why was it created?
BTW, I just love Cedric's expression of "liberty". I'm glad his "liberty" was aggressively argued for while my friend, dad, or brother is dead because Cedric had "liberty" to own an AK.
I don't think my "free speech" had a thing to do with those people getting shot in KS or by the Uber driver. I do happen to think a gun played a role, though, but that's just me.
What part of inherent, natural, and civil right is so difficult to understand? What part of Liberty is so hard to understand? I'll not argue against your straw man. When you choose to trample MY rights, I'll choose to ignore your argument.
- Edited
This is exactly what I love...you are going to bluster and NEVER address the fundamental simple question. What is a gun used for? Why were they created? You know the answer...TO KILL. This is what upsets me...those who think as you do who literally hide behind phrases like "guns don't kill people". Cedric Ford, alone, didn't kill those people in KS nor did the Uber driver. Both Cedric and the Uber driver had a first class accomplice but ironically the accomplice is not really considered an accomplice by you. Why?
EDIT: Why don't we let people choose to put missile silos in their backyard? Everyone should have the right to have a missile silo with a keypad with big red button just in case they feel threatened. Would you be in favor of that? If not...Why not? Missile silos in backyards would never kill people. It's not a straw man. It's simple questions that get to the heart of what you wish never to get to the heart of.
Your 'question' is a straw man. It has nothing to do with rights. If there were an ignore button here I would use it. Since I can't seem to escape some self-righteous, self proclaimed moral superior, willfully ignorant jack-wagon, I'll leave you to your cesspit of of moral high ground.
The fundamental simple question you choose to ignore is, What part of inherent, natural, and civil right, are you willfully choosing to ignore?
- Edited
Is liberty a soul's right to breathe? I guess it comes down to what you want to hide behind in the definition of liberty and within the phrase that guns don't kill people. You can choose to hide behind whatever you want.
Someone's right/liberty to smoke shouldn't impinge on my right/liberty to live a healthy life. That is why I'm a million percent against people having the liberty/right to blow smoke in my face that takes away my right/liberty to not suffer disease due to their liberty. What you really get to in places where real thinking is fleshed out is where does your liberty end and someone else's begin. Is that not fair? If ALL have liberty and not just you and your desire for your own liberty lines have to be drawn somewhere, right? In the case of second hand smoke they have been and rightly so.
However, when it comes to the liberty of owning AK 47's there is no line? None? Would you argue there is no line in the second hand smoke issue? Do you think someone should have the right to blow smoke in your face? The answer to that question applies so much to the phrase guns don't kill people but you can obfuscate it all day long.
Oh, I'm all about rights and liberty...I'm not sure you have a handle on what those terms imply.
EDIT: I am sorry that you proved that issues can't be discussed with your name calling. That has no place in a debate where liberty is on display. The line crossed by you in the exercise of your personal liberty is equal to the line crossed by Cedric in the exercise of his liberty. Neither of you could keep your liberty in proper perspective and crossed lines that shouldn't have been crossed.
This topic offends me. Please delete it.
Thanks.
Agree with PA-PLAYA. Don't let this turn into what old FGI had become
I think everyone had a chance to state their opinion on the subject. So I think we can close it now.
jrock locked the discussion .