Lead Joint

[Norcon]

What is your point exactly ?

Badminton is a sport.

Guns kill.

Guns don't kill.
People kill. For example if I go outside to my yard and see a rat I can choose to bash it over the head with a shovel or I can choose to use my shotgun. ( or I could unleash my terrier or my badmington racket) Or I can use poison.
The shotgun is more effective though. Either way neither the shovel nor the shotgun have picked themselves up to do this terrible act.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/28/ukcrime.ruralaffairs

The shotgun might come in handy in the future though.

 

[Softus]

Guns don't kill.
People kill.

Clearly people do kill, both with and without guns, but this little ditty is only ever used by people who like guns.

Two people with two guns, robbing and defending a shop, to take but one example, are unlikely to kill each other without guns. Guns make it easier for people to kill each other.

For example if I go outside to my yard and see a rat I can choose to bash it over the head with a shovel or I can choose to use my shotgun. ( or I could unleash my terrier or my badmington racket)
The shotgun is more effective though.

You seem to be saying that the gun is more effective at killing.

Does it follow that with a gun a person finds it easier to kill?

And isn't it reasonable to be looking for ways to make it harder for people to kill?

Either way neither the shovel nor the shotgun have have picked themselves up to do this terrible act.

It's comical that all gun nuts argue in this childish way, i.e. pointing out that guns don't fire themselves. As if opponents of gun ownership think that guns are possessed in a different way.

 

[Norcon]

Softus wrote

Clearly people do kill, both with and without guns, but this little ditty is only ever used by people who like guns.

That may be so but its true none the less.
Guns don't kill.
PEOPLE KILL.

Two people with two guns, robbing and defending a shop, to take but one example, are unlikely to kill each other without guns. Guns make it easier for people to kill each other.

Agreed.

You seem to be saying that the gun is more effective at killing.

I would have thought that was obvious. Haven't you ever tried bashing a moving target over the head with a shovel and then tried using a shotgun instead.

Does it follow that with a gun a person finds it easier to kill?

Are you referring to rats or humans ?

And isn't it reasonable to be looking for ways to make it harder for people to kill?

I have trouble enough killing rats without lobbyists making it more difficult.

It's comical that all gun nuts argue in this childish way, i.e. pointing out that guns don't fire themselves. As if opponents of gun ownership think that guns are possessed in a different way.

Firstly I am not a "gun nut" as you incorrectly assume. Some of us have perfectly legitimate reasons for gun ownership of which I doubt you would understand.
Secondly the vetting process involved in obtaining the "Firearm Certificate" is very strict over here in Northern Ireland and would weed out potential "Gun nuts" IMO.

 

[Softus]

Clearly people do kill, both with and without guns, but this little ditty is only ever used by people who like guns.

That may be so but its true none the less.
Guns don't kill.
PEOPLE KILL.

You seem to be going around in circles.

That's exactly what a gun nut recently did, on this very web site. Then, when it didn't suit his argument any longer, he took the view that bullets kill, not people.

You seem to be saying that the gun is more effective at killing.

I would have thought that was obvious.

Did you really not understand where that point was leading?

It wasn't to ask you what I already know, but to ask you if you agreed. Instead of just agreeing, you've chosen to mock me in a stupidly childish way.

Does it follow that with a gun a person finds it easier to kill?

Are you referring to rats or humans ?

Humans. I honestly couldn't give a flying ***k about vermin.

And isn't it reasonable to be looking for ways to make it harder for people to kill?

I have trouble enough killing rats without lobbyists making it more difficult.

Well, I don't know, but perhaps rolling your eyes at those lobbyists will help.

What I do know is that my point is about reducing violence towards people, not rats.

It's comical that all gun nuts argue in this childish way, i.e. pointing out that guns don't fire themselves. As if opponents of gun ownership think that guns are possessed in a different way.

I am not a "gun nut" as you incorrectly assume.

That's exactly what a gun nut would claim.

Notwithstanding that, I've made no assumptions. If you think I've called you a gun nut, then please show me where I did it.

Some of us have perfectly legitimate reasons for gun ownership of which I doubt you would understand.

That sounds like an assumption on your part.

Is the reason for your gun ownership so complex, and/or convoluted, that a reasonably intelligent person, who knows how to use a gun safely, and who lives in a rural area, wouldn't understand it?

Or is it just difficult for you to justify without resorting to saying "I like guns"?

 

[Norcon]

Guns don't kill.
PEOPLE KILL.

Get it yet. I doubt it

 

[Softus]

I get that it's all you're capable of writing, and that you're incapable of justifying or explaining it without using the characteristic gun nut mantra of "guns don't fire themselves".

 

[Norcon]

I get that it's all you're capable of writing, and that you're incapable of justifying or explaining it without using the characteristic gun nut mantra of "guns don't fire themselves".

Guns don't kill.
PEOPLE KILL.
Get it yet ?.
I doubt it.

 

[Softus]

Guns don't kill.
PEOPLE KILL.
Get it yet. I doubt it

I get that it's all you're capable of writing, and that you're incapable of justifying or explaining it without using the characteristic gun nut mantra of "guns don't fire themselves".

Guns don't kill.
PEOPLE KILL.
Get it yet ?.
I doubt it.

So that's the full extent of your argument, then?

Whatever I write, you'll just reply with the same thing?

 

[Norcon]

Guns don't kill
PEOPLE KILL
Get it yet ?.
I doubt it.

 

[Softus]

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=938621#938621

 

[wiggikins]

Is it not about time to put this one to bed!

 

[Softus]

Why not just shoot it, then it can sleep with the fishes.

 

[wiggikins]

MOD 7 go to bed !

 

[gremlin16]

FAO SOFTUS

Why should any gun be licensed?

Now - look at the number of deaths and injuries caused by illegally held guns just before draconian licensing came into effect in 1988- 410 people killed and injured.

So we licence and regulate guns more and more to protect people. That MUST have had an effect......

2005/6 - 3,821 people killed and injured by the illegal use of guns.

Now tell the families of the dead and injured that regulating the law-abiding has saved them from death and injury.

Cant you get it into your head that gun crime will always be here.

Those of us that shoot for pleasure whether clay pigeon shooting, target shooting or shooting these dammed cruel foxes have no intention of turning guns on to other human beings.

Neither would we consider breaking in to some ones home and robbing them.

Criminals don't care a f**k about gun laws and sure to hell don't care about any human being.

Its about time the police concentrated their effort in reducing these type of people, but with so many like yourself complaining about licenced guns, their time is spent checking shotgun certificates and FAC holders.


And for your information a bullet cant kill !!
What you call a bullet is the projectile that is inserted into the brass cartridge, which is then termed a round.

A round cant kill unless a human decides to fire it. !!

Now a criminal could decide to direct the projectile at some innocent by stander, then the police take charge and f**k everything up.


Cant blame the licenced gun user for poor policing can you.

Now when a fox kills for the hell of it can you honestly say it does not deserve to be shoot.

 

[Softus]

FAO SOFTUS

Why should any gun be licensed?

Who wrote that?

Now - look at the number of deaths and injuries caused by illegally held guns just before draconian licensing came into effect in 1988- 410 people killed and injured.

And that?

So we licence and regulate guns more and more to protect people. That MUST have had an effect......

2005/6 - 3,821 people killed and injured by the illegal use of guns.

Now tell the families of the dead and injured that regulating the law-abiding has saved them from death and injury.

And all of that?

Cant you get it into your head that gun crime will always be here.

Why do you think that I don't already know that?

Those of us that shoot for pleasure whether clay pigeon shooting, target shooting or shooting these dammed cruel foxes have no intention of turning guns on to other human beings.

OK. Please show me where I said that they/you do.

Neither would we consider breaking in to some one home and robbing them.

Er, OK. If you say so. :shrug:

I don't have any evidence to show that some licenced gun owners are also of criminal intent, but frankly I find it hard to believe that this subset of the population is 100% honest and law abiding. For one thing, many of them/you profess to being prepared to take the law into their own hands if faced with an intruder in their home, and I don't believe for one moment that a single one of them/you doesn't know that that it would be illegal do so.

Criminals don't care a f**k about gun laws and sure to hell don't care about any human being.

You appear to know a lot about the criminal mens rea.

Its about time the police concentrated their effort in reducing these type of people, but with so many like yourself complaining about licenced guns, their time is spent checking shotgun certificates and FAC holders.

It's about time you showed me where I "complained" about licensed guns, and/or asked anyone to check your licence.

And for your information a bullet cant kill !!

Please show me where I said that it can.

What you call a bullet is the projectile that is inserted into the brass cartridge, which is then termed a round.

I've never attempted to define a bullet. I've merely referred to the word as used by a gun nut who posts on this web site.

A round cant kill unless a human decides to fire it. !!

If you ignore the fact that some rounds are fired accidentally, then I would have to agree with you.

Now a criminal could decide to direct the projectile at some innocent by stander, then the police take charge and f**k everything up.

Ah, so it's all the fault of the police?

Cant blame the licenced gun user for poor policing can you.

If you exclude lunatic gun nuts from your definition of licenced gun users, then I would have to agree with you, but we're all to blame for ineffective policing.

For example, do you know anyone who has submitted a fraudulent insurance claim? If so, did you report them? If not, then how do you suppose the police are supposed to detect fraud?

Now when a fox kills for the hell of it can you honestly say it does not deserve to be shoot.

I don't know why foxes kill. Is it because they've been watching Foghorn Leghorn on their little foxes' TV?