'Guns Don't Kill People'.

Cars, spoons, and pencils all exist for a reason other than killing. These comparisons are so frustrating.

The point of a spoon is to eat. The point of a pencil is to express ideas. The point of a car is to travel. The point of a gun is to end one's life functions. They're all tools. The only difference is that one of those tools is used to kill and kil

The fact that guns are designed solely for the purpose of killing needs to be pointed out in these arguments all the time. For some unknown reason.

But I'm with you. It's a bad comparison. Spoons weren't invented to end lives.

 

100,000 years ago, humans used rocks, clubs and pointy objects to get what they wanted or to express their displeasure against fellow humans. Evolution at work has proven quite effective at improving the ways in which we can slaughter each other. Doesn't matter what exactly humans outlaw or make difficult to obtain because a certain percentage of us will be peaceful, a certain percentage will express the murderous side of humanity as has always been the case. As long as humans want what other humans have ,from the punk in the neighborhood breaking into a house to steal a tv , to the leaders of dangerous countries---that will kill, jail, and torture their citizens to get / keep what they want------what's new?? The more things change, the more they remain the same.

 

What the old (relatively) adage implies is true. Sometimes we forget its meaning in our efforts to convince others of guns being the right answer or a "bright idea" as it were.

What does that mean? I think I know.

People of their own accord decide to kill or not to kill. What is unsaid about "guns don't kill people"?

We aren't saying a litany of things that play into the minds of people and whether or not they decide to kill, with or without guns.

The way a person understands guns has an immense influence on their decision and their capacity and how they prioritize the factors involved.

In my mind, it goes to the problem of murder seeming somewhat acceptable based on the behaviors of those around us in public arenas like traffic, lines in stores, and even movies or concerts.

The idea that it's ok to impose murder as a consequence as a person who is not to be trifled with is extremely common! That's why guns kill people.

 

Okay. Most automobile deaths are unfortunate but accidental. Deliberate killings pose a special kind of threat to society that accidents don't. There are of course those jihadist incidents involving cars that we must now figure out how to minimize, but the convenience of an automobile is something society finds so great that we consider the risk acceptable. We do , however, require drivers tests and licenses. Smoking kills mainly the people who smoke, but can also be lethal to those who must live around them. That's why we restrict the risk by having "no smoking" sections in restaurants or banning it entirely in certain buildings. As for the nonsense about guns per se not killing anyone when they're just sitting there without anyone using them, that's true, but beside the point. When little Suzie removes one from Daddy's drawer and takes it to school to shoot her classmates, that makes it a killer. Guns have become the weapon of choice in most mass killings, cuz they're just so efficient and avoid the hassle of hand-to-hand combat! Their availability makes them deadly. Without the gun the person bent on killing would have to use other means--like a suicide vest or a truck filled with explosives--which tends not to end well for the perpetrator. Some of those have actually survived the school shootings and been put on trial.

 

Sometimes they do. They can malfunction and blow up in someone's face

 

Ah, this old debate. These arguments have been going around in circles for decades and I have never seen one single person change their stance through these arguments, ever. Both sides of the debate believe they are correct and others are wrong. Statistics don't matter, using emotional arguments don't matter. Stating what happens in other countries vs another don't matter. Deflecting from deaths related to guns vs other means of death don't matter. Nothing ever changes, nothing is ever done one way or another.

But what I find interesting in this thread is that it ties closely to some threads I read in here yesterday and an example I made in those threads. Those threads/discussions were targeting Social Media and how social media has ruined society. That kids don't go out to play anymore because of being fixated on their phones. That nobody goes out on the town anymore or socialise outside of their homes anymore, like the bars, restaurants and such. One example given was how guys don't approach random women to talk them up anymore. It was also noted that Social Media is filled with racists, intolerance, bigots, and all that.

And it all got me thinking. Why are people blaming Social Media for all the ills of the world today? It's just a tool. A platform. It's not the Social Media that causes problems, it's the people who use those platforms. Which is the same thing towards firearms. Firearms in themselves are not dangerous to anyone until a user decides to activate one and use it (ie: load ammo in them, fire them)

And yet, not everyone who uses social media is a troll, a racist, a bigot. There's many good people out there who are mature, decent, and treat others with respect.

And there are indeed many people who own and operate firearms in a safe, respectful way and know wtf they're doing. Many in my immediate and extended family served in the armed forces. My father trained people on how to use firearms when he served. Hunting was also a big part of the family and we ate what was caught/shot. I had a BB gun at the age of 8 or so. I was trained to fire a real firearm at the age of 10 using a Lee Enfield. We were all responsible with them and knew exactly how dangerous they can be in the wrong hands.

But the thing between the Social Media Argument and the Firearms Arguments is that even Social Media Platforms have rules and terms/conditions one must follow in order to use those platforms. Break those rules and you get punished. Break them enough times or badly enough and you get banned. These Forums are Social Media, one of the oldest kinds, and there are rules that exist we must follow, with admins and mods who enforce said rules.

So what about rules, laws and regulations for firearms and their use? Seems logical there should be some that exist that people must follow or else they aren't allowed to use them.

Yes, there are deaths related to cars, aircraft, smoking and a hoopla of all kinds of other things out there that can kill or seriously harm people. But there are laws and licenses for operating a motor vehicle. There are laws and licenses for flying an aircraft. There are laws and age restrictions for smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol, which one can't just smoke or drink wherever they please without regard for those around them. And when existing rules, tests, licenses, or laws don't work well enough to ensure public safety and the safety of the individuals using said devices/services/products, those rules and such get changed to adapt to an ever evolving world.

So when it comes to firearms, countries like Canada and Australia had some very relaxed laws decades ago. It only took one mass shooting in each country for laws to be changed and regulations made tighter. There are still firearms in both countries, and if you go through the correct processes, you can own and use a firearm. But making these changes has drastically brought down gun related crimes and deaths in both countries. Do gun related crimes and deaths still happen? They sure do. Nothing is absolute. There is no one solution that solves a problem 100%. But just because you may never reach 100%, that's not justification for doing nothing at all. 80% reduction, hell a 20% reduction is still progress.

So, what about the US? How does one approach that situation? A country that has a Constitution stating citizens have a right to owning and using arms, and shall not be infringed. Based on that, any real regulation, laws, or restrictions are an "Infringement" so therefore no matter how many school shootings, mass shootings or attempted assassinations (Regan, Trump, probably a couple others) or successful assassinations on Presidents throughout history (Lincoln, JFK, etc), the needle never budges on firearm restrictions.

Why? Because several fallible human beings from a couple of centuries ago, who were not Gods and couldn't predict the future any better than you or I, wrote down on some paper that every US Citizen has the right to own some muskets in case the King of England came knocking on the door.

They couldn't predict muskets would evolve into what we have today. They couldn't predict what this Amendment would do to society like what has been happening in the last several decades. Their focus was on outside forces and defending against them, not what would happen to a society that turns those weapons against themselves.

But let's also consider how Americans love to cherry pick their own Constitution to suit their own needs. The original text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Everyone constantly hears that last half in arguments, yet continually ignore everything before the first comma. There is a condition that goes with that right to bear arms. This is not one or two sentences or several paragraphs, it's one single sentence that many Americans tend to ignore the first half but use the other half to serve their argument. It clearly states that the condition of having that right to bear arms is based entirely on the need for a "Well regulated Militia."

Tell me. How many Americans who own firearms are actually a part of a legitimate, registered and regulated Militia, ready to defend the country with the firearms they own? I would wager its an extreme small minority of the population. Even still, those who actually are a part of a Regulated Militia are also properly trained in the use of firearms. A Militia (or the Reserve Forces) are not a bunch of Hoo Ha's doing their own things with no coordination. They are still a military force that requires order, structure and to work as one. That requires proper training.

Another question: As an American, if you owned a firearm and your government called upon you to fight in a war, would you immediately stand up and serve your country and join your local Militia? Nah, of course most Americans wouldn't. That's what the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines and all that are for.

Your guns are for protecting yourself, your family, your property. That's your right. Everyone hears it all the time..... And yet it isn't your right for any of those things because that isn't what the 2nd Amendment states at all. There's the argument that the 2nd Amendment has recently been "Reinterpreted" as individual self defense, but how can one "Reinterpret" a sentence written in plain English that states something so damn clearly? Translate the 2nd Amendment in another language and it'd still mean what it states. It mentions nothing about self defense other than for maintaining a well regulated Militia.

And the Constitution itself. People act like it's some holy scripture and should never be updated. Other countries have Charters of Rights and Constitutions too, and they can and have been updated to keep aligned to changing times. Just like the rules, laws and regulations for cars, social media and such I mentioned way back in this post. Times change. Technology changes. Society changes. Our understanding changes. Charters and Constitutions need to change from time to time too.

If we never updated laws/rules when needed to suit changing times, we'd all be still flinging our chamber pots of shit and piss out our windows and using leeches to cure masturbation. What makes anybody think some rules written almost two and a half centuries ago would remain relevant today without any updates?

Our existence is about learning, growth, evolving to be better than those who came before us. When environments change, those willing and able to adapt survive. Those who don't adapt eventually go extinct, and that's what is happening now with the US.

And it's their own undoing because as everything around them on this planet changes, they refuse to bilaterally and mutually update their Constitution to adapt. They're stuck in the past using rules for Muskets and Swords and applying them to Assault Rifles and Armour Piercing Rounds, not against a foreign King, but against each other.

And Americans are scared. They're afraid to change anything. The 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted so badly and for so long, that things have gotten out of control. There are so many guns within the US and so many Americans believing God himself gave them the right to own and use military grade weaponry, all anyone in the US can do is talk and debate. Nothing will ever change. Nothing will ever be done, because nobody has the balls to stand up and actually do something and make a change..... Because everybody knows full well that person will be gunned down and made an example. Any sensible control was lost a long time ago. It's too late.

Which leaves the only option for US officials they can choose is to add more guns into the mix and train their citizens on how to deal with their fellow citizens trying to kill them by killing them first. They can't infringe on gun rights, but nobody said anything about pouring gasoline onto the fire, making it much worse, while pretending you're making a positive difference. Bullet proof school bags for your children, blinds to block out windows so shooters can't see inside a classroom, arming teachers and training them to gun down the students they're there to teach and educate. What other country on this planet could compare to that? And Americans still believe the whole world wants to live in the US? (immigrants? Other countries have immigrants too, as well as immigration problems. The US is not unique in this regard)

So that's why this whole gun debate is pointless. Nothing I have written will make a lick of difference. I'm just killing time here. Each side of the argument is stuck in their ways. Nobody will change their position, the US government is petrified in doing anything about the gun problems, and nobody will accept that the Constitution was written by fallible humans who couldn't predict what life would be like 200+ years in the future. Hell, people in the 1980s couldn't predict what the 2000s would be like.

Nothing will change in the US, no matter how much anyone pleads, and it will only continue to get worse. So you either arm yourselves up and prepare to defend yourself against your fellow Americans, or leave the country for a better life. There's plenty of options. But the US will never change. Even if one or several States collectively decided to leave the Union and make their own Constitution/Charter to address modern problems and modern concerns, it wouldn't last. The other States wouldn't allow it. So it'll either be another Civil War, or you all go down in flames together. The end result is the same.

And to be honest, I lost all sympathy in the mid 2000s, after several high profile mass / school shootings back then. Since Columbine, it's been the same vicious cycle. A bunch of people are killed, people talk about more gun control. Officials tell everyone now is not the time to make this "tragedy" political and now is the time for thoughts and prayers. Then everyone shuts up and does their little thoughts and prayers crap, interview the survivors, write stories, then the next mass shooting occurs because someone's mommy and daddy didn't love them enough & it's a way to get worldwide fame, more people are killed, the calls for gun control start again, and again officials say now not the time. Thoughts and Prayers.

Over two & a half decades and counting since Columbine. How's those Thoughts and Prayers working out for ya?

If you people refuse to help yourselves in fixing a problem you created yourselves, why should others continue to feel sorry for you?

Some claim Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

 

There is no one in these forums who is advocating for lienciency for gun crime.

No one is advocating for posession of assault style weapons.

 

Yes they are… there is most certainly a cadre of people in this forum that think assault weapons or more guns in general are just fine…..as well as the R’s. And how is leniency in gun problems an issue? As if that is part of the problem. The contortions conservatives go through to avoid addressing an issue that claims so many innocent lives is numbing. Have they no heart or intelligence?

 

Is that a serious question? Most of us that have been around a while know the answer to that. Cowards that have no moral standards are now in charge. Don't expect anything to be done about anything except that which will benefit themselves. And of course don't forget the ever popular "thoughts and prayers" bullshit that seems to fit in today's slaughterhouse.