Yes, guns kill people. Sure...

E

ezmiraldo

New member
If reading this story doesn't convince any intellectually honest person that this world is full of evil, unpredictable, and extremely violent psychopaths, I don't know what else will.

The bottom line is that human mind is the most dangerous weapon. Try to ban that!

Guns might be some of the most efficient tools for inflicting harm in the hands of the wrong person, but they are hardly the most accessible, easy to use, terror-inspiring, or damage inflicting. Humans have always found ways to kill (or, what's just as sick, torture) each other in very creative and abhorrent ways -- and they always will find such ways, regardless of the tools available (pouring gasoline on someone and setting them on fire, throwing rocks from 10-story balcony on passers by, throwing acid into someone's eyes, scolding people with boiling water, using home-made IEDs, driving cars into groups of people, making someone drink Draino, using spears and arrows and bows, using poison - or torturing and killing them in thousands of other possible ways). If someone has a big grievance against humanity, given this person has at least an average IQ, given this person has access to the Internet and Home Depot, given this person is persistent, and given this person has couple of months to develop a plan, that person will be able to inflict huge harm on his fellow men - regardless of the gun control laws. Gun, for that person, is just one of thousands of possible options (and not the most destructive option, at that).

Unfortunately, the same creative mind that makes Shakespeare and Einstein possible, enables us to be extremely effective, creative, and ruthless killers -- if we have problematic psychological inclinations. And, when sick people get in groups with other like-minded people, the potential for creative destruction exponentially goes up... All in all, it's the mind that's the main causal agent of destruction, not the tool. Without murderous mindset, destruction occurs only by accident. Without a gun, destruction is still possible due to availability of hundreds of items that can be turned into weapons.
 
Last edited:
Wow, they planned the attack FOR MONTHS???

I'm not sure how these two girls can ever be let out into society again. There has to be something fundamentally wrong in their minds to plan a knife attack like this, on a friend no less, and I don't know if you can ever really fix a mental failure like that. This sort of behaviour is never just a bump in the road.

I note that the victim didn't actually die, which as apparently their intent - i.e. they didn't mean to just cut her up. If they'd attacked her with a gun she would have been much more likely to die.

BUT

I recognise that the vast, vast majority of gun owners are responsible sensible people, and keep their guns out of their children's hands (usually safely locked away) until those children are old enough to be taught to practise gun safety and understand and respect the potential damage a gun can do. I suspect that children who do get to handle guns under the correct supervision may have LESS fascination with them, and be less likely to go off the rails, because their parents have shown that they can be responsible and trusted.

What more can a parent do? You wouldn't normally lock up all the knives in your house like you do your guns, so if these girls wanted a nice big kitchen knife they'd find one. I'm very concerned that the girls' parents appear to have been taken completely unaware by this turn of events. Did nothing in their children's behaviour in the months of planning before the attack strike them as odd?


As a parent of a toddler I know I have all these worries ahead of me, but I hope as my boy grows up I'll have a better handle on what he's getting up to when my back is turned.
 
Actually, at a very basic level, even a gun doesn't kill anyone or anything. It takes TWO factors before a gun can kill. First, it must have ammunition, and second, a human must operate it. A gun by itelf is nothing more than a lump of metal and/or plastic.
 
"Actually, at a very basic level, even a gun doesn't kill anyone or anything. It takes TWO factors before a gun can kill. First, it must have ammunition, and second, a human must operate it. A gun by itelf is nothing more than a lump of metal and/or plastic."

Your first two statements are indisputable. With all due respect, your third statement is incorrect. In fact, a gun by itself is a carefully designed and manufactured product made of particular materials which enable the product to safely and accurately fire bullets/shot through the bore of the barrel to the target. A gun, therefore, is quite different than the lump of metal and plastic I am using to submit this reply, i.e., my Dell laptop.:)
 
All in all, it's the mind that's the main causal agent of destruction, not the tool.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's not good politics to call for the confiscation of brains...sweet, tasty braaaaains...

Sorry. Where were we? Oh, yes. Gun control is a sneaky bit of social engineering that takes malice out of the hands of the person and puts it into an object. It's actually quite unique in that regard, since we don't blame cars for drunk driving or knives for the present atrocity.

Instead, the hardest they're trying is to blame this "slender man" meme.
 
Your first two statements are indisputable. With all due respect, your third statement is incorrect. In fact, a gun by itself is a carefully designed and manufactured product made of particular materials which enable the product to safely and accurately fire bullets/shot through the bore of the barrel to the target. A gun, therefore, is quite different than the lump of metal and plastic
Click to expand...

The point is, machining, fashioning or whatever is irrelevant; The "gun" is an inert, inanimate object and, no matter what the shape or form, is still nothing more than a lump of metal and/or plastic.
 
Last edited:
This is a choir argument. It is the contention of antigun folks that the prime purpose of the gun is as a weapon. Not a tool or lump of metal. The argument has no force if one looks at implement purpose. Cars kill many more but have a major useful purpose that allow us to travel. They are subject to many reasonable restrictions.

A gun is different

It's prime intended use can goad folks towards using it as weapon. It has no other purpose. The sporting uses are training derivatives of weapons use.

It is protected constitutionally for its use as a weapon, not as a lump.

I support its ownership as a weapon and not a lump.
 
A virgin male looking at some ' dirty pictures' on the Internet?

Like I said, the tool argument is useless and contrary to the reason guns are constitutionally protected. It's only the choir trying to convince people that guns are nice and my EBR is for sport.
 
Glenn,

I see your point. But, you appear to be accepting the technologically deterministic argument that technology's effect on one's behavior is much greater than mind's effect on one's behavior. I don't know if I fully agree (I agree somewhat, because the features of a particular technology make one v. another use more easy -- but these features do not determine the use, if this makes any sense).

In other words, anything can be turned into a weapon - including ball pens, shoe laces, soft pillows, one's hands and legs -- if one is so inclined. However, if one is not so inclined, even a nuclear bomb is a harmless object.

I don't think this is a weak argument - if people are open-minded, willing to listen, and are not reacting emotionally. Yeah, I know what you gonna say about that last point... :)
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that I was accepting the argument that guns drive you to be a killer. That literature is quite mixed. Maybe I wasn't clear - my fault.

It is the contention of some of the literature that guns make you pull the trigger by priming aggression. There are other scholars that disagree.

The antis, however, certainly buy the argument that they do make you more prone to aggression in general.

Thus guns are causal in such rampages.

More reasoned views are that for a good number of the rampages we have deep underlying pathologies and then weapons presence and culture may channel how the person then acts out. There is good evidence for this in the pathological subset.

But that is not to say that the 'normal' person is pushed to violence. Evidence shows that those who are trained in usage, competitive shooters and the like tend to be less aggressive. Antis would disagree.

The next point is that gun folks want to downplay the weapons aspect of guns as I feel they are trying to refute the antis argument that guns, being weapons are bad drive all to become nuts. NO - they are tools.

The problem with that is folks don't understand that intentionality of the instrument use drives your opinion of it. Guns really don't have a clear dual nature.

Cars do - travel but nuts can drive. Travel is predominant.

Guns are weapons and the sporting uses are all derivative of weapons use. IDPA, IPSC, Bullseye, Biatholon, Skeet, etc. are derivative from weapons use in shooting people or animals. The only pure tool use of guns that I know of are special purpose gadgets used to blast scale out of blast furnances or to start avalanches.

That brings us to the 2nd Amend. The gun is protected as a weapon for self-defense, protecting the country and protecting against tyranny. That is a weapons use and not a tool use. Without acknowledging the weapons use there is no reason for the 2nd Amend.

If there was a tool or sporting instrument, that had a second perverted use as an efficient killer - then we would have all kinds of restrictions (and we do on some tools).

When you push tool or sport - you deny the 2nd Amend. Also, given the efficacy of the MSR - I don't think the argument would convince any anti (certainly) and probably not a middle of the roader with sport.

Show someone a carbine match or three gun match - convince them that this is not a weapons practice but purely sport - ain't going to happen.

Even the semi argument vs full auto argument would pale in comparion to the rate of fire you see with semis. It won't make them think the AR is nice.

We also argument for being able to own fully auto, how does that jive with sport? It does jive with the 2nd Amend. reasons.

Hope I clarified. I take a lot of crap at work for advocating the 2nd Amend. and that has convinced me that the MSR, tool excuses are pandering to the antis.

One might ask then - why to you think the Chipolte-oids were wrong then. Shouldn't we have the right to stroll around with such? Good question. My answer is that their actions were stupid PR and the issues could be handled better. I am pragmatic. I can argue the 2nd Amend. issues for EBRs better than they could. Also, the carry instantiations I see are fundamentally unsafe and tactically stupid.
 
Glenn,

I see your point. But, you appear to be accepting the technologically deterministic argument that technology's effect on one's behavior is much greater than mind's effect on one's behavior. I don't know if I agree.

Anything can be turned into a weapon - including ball pens and one's hands and legs -- if one is so inclined.

On the other hand, if one is not so inclined, even a nuclear bomb is a harmless object.
Click to expand...

Anything can be turned into a weapon but guns are easiest to use even for someone with minimal training, and I never heard of a suicide where the person beat themselves to death with their own fists. Carry an empty gun in the wrong place at the wrong time and you'll cause a panic, but empty fists usually scare nobody.


Guns are weapons, but many of us collect them for more than their primary purpose. If I just wanted guns to shoot things with, I'd have one or two handguns (since I have two hands), not nearly a dozen, and maybe two shotguns, 12 and 20 gauge, and a bunch of rifles if I wanted to hunt.

Like car enthusiasts, gun collectors have gone beyond their primary purpose of the object and collect them for their interest, history, beauty, and probably other reasons I can't think of right now.
 
Glenn, you have made some very valid points. However, I was making my point at the lowest common denominator: That without human intervention, a gun is truly just a lump of inert metal.
 
Great thread. But let's not confuse rights with privileges. Driving is a privilege and not constitutionally protected. A car could make an excellent weapon, and often does.

A "Gun" is like a can opener. It's primary use is defined in it's form. I can open a can with a knife or chisel, but I can not rename them and call them "can openers" and have everyone agree with me.

The MSR debate, I agree, is pandering. A gun is what it is. It's also excellent for opening cans out to about 100 yards, which I believe is protected by the first amend! :-)

I think without being ridiculous we can say "Yes, it's a gun and it was designed to kill things, I have a constitutional right to own and carry one for that purpose in the event I ever have to protect myself or family. I recommend you do the same."
"Oh and shooting is a fantastic recreational pastime, hobby or sport for any gender and almost any age"

-SS-
 
That without human intervention, a gun is truly just a lump of inert metal.
Click to expand...

I agree this is a good discussion. I will point out thought that quite few people have been shot by their dog. :D Canine intervention? Haha.
 
It is not a good thing for the government to have the power it has taken or to give them a right to require psychological tests in order to carry.

Yes whack jobs that stay clean get guns. They will always get them. In countries with strict gun control they still do.

It all starts with family. Where it goes from there is above my pay grade.

Mel
 
Stories like this has me shaking my head. Where were the parents? They don't watch what their kids do? Especially on the internet? I guess I am crazy in thinking that parents should be watching and teaching their kids proper manners and respect for people. I think the parents of these girls should be punished as well. Jail time for the parents and death penalty for the girls. I believe that someone deserves equal or worse punishment for crimes they commit. So in this case they planned and executed a scheme to kill a young girl. So why not do the same to them? Instead this country will put them in a safe padded cell saying they were mentally unstable, give them three meals, snacks, library, gym, healthcare, dentalcare and a roof over their heads. All paid for by the citizens of this once great nation.

These girls never gave any consideration for the life of their victim so why should we give any consideration for their lives?
 
Yes, it's always the parents fault, isn't it? Lets punish them, too, or instead, its their fault for not doing a good enough job, right?

Except, of course, when it isn't....

I've been a parent, more than once. I've known quite a few parents, including my own...

What matters most is not what you teach them, or don't teach them, its not whether you are a "whatever..." kind of parent, or if you are on them like a Marine Drill Sgt, when the little darlings are out of your control, they are out of your control! And they will do what they WANT to do.

As a parent, if you do your job right, what they want to do will be the right things. But no matter what kind of parent you are, kids will do what they choose to do, it is THEIR choice.

Its called free will, and despite any and everything parents can do, children still have it, and will use it. Sometimes, despite everything, kids are just bad...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top