12 Dead, 50 Injured in Shooting at "Dark Knight Rises" Premire in Colorado

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Gregness

You claimed that your issue with guns was that their only purpose was killing, So I bring up a bunch more things whose only purpose is to kill (and yes, stretched quite a bit with martial arts as I'm aware there's quite a few good reasons to learn them) and you say 'actually, those don't kill as many people so it's cool'. Swords especially, are designed for nothing else but the killing of other people and if it truly is the intended purpose that offends you you should want them banned just as badly.

False Analogies, they are inherently limited in the harm they can do. so they aren't comparable.

Originally Posted by Bells

Which someone can try to tie right into the "cars also kill so we should ban cars" argument, but i honestly hope we can be above that because "that's not the same" is the answer for that and we would just get stuck in a loop here.

the answer is obviously that cars do something other than kill people. Guns don't.

[Marc v4.0]

Cars also kill so we should teach people how to fucking drive because holy shit people don't drive in traffic so much as pretend no one else is there on the road.

[Gregness]

Originally Posted by Marc v4.0

See, one is a software solution to a problem that the people who made it actually created, in effort to be as greedy as possible. It is a minor annoyance at the very worst.

The other is a Weapon that can kill or seriously maim another living human being, and the regulation of those things might actually prevent people who are mentally unstable or dangerous from getting easy access to the Firearm. At worst, it saves less lives than we estimate, but it still saves human life.

And most regulations are little more than an annoyance for criminals. Anyway, if you're willing to make the sacrifice of being treated like a potential criminal in the name of safety, then that's a legitimate position but not one that I personally agree with.

Originally Posted by Sifright

False Analogies, they are inherently limited in the harm they can do. so they aren't comparable.



the answer is obviously that cars do something other than kill people. Guns don't.

Sif, in case it hasn't become apparant my real beef with the arguments you've been making is that they aren't consistent. First you say your problem is with their design intent, so I bring up other stuff with similar intents and you switch to a degree of harm argument. You did it in that very post in fact. Like, is anyone else seeing this too or am I going nuts?

EDIT: Incidently, False analogy doesn't apply since I'm not trying to say that violent crime is equivalent to software piracy.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Gregness

And most regulations are little more than an annoyance for criminals. Anyway, if you're willing to make the sacrifice of being treated like a potential criminal in the name of safety, then that's a legitimate position but not one that I personally agree with.



Sif, in case it hasn't become apparant my real beef with the arguments you've been making is that they aren't consistent. First you say your problem is with their design intent, so I bring up other stuff with similar intents and you switch to a degree of harm argument. You did it in that very post in fact. Like, is anyone else seeing this too or am I going nuts?

the problem is you think I am arguing with only a single thought in mind when i'm not. Swords are not used to massacre a bunch of people by one person because it can't be done, like wise with bows and arrows. Its like you are trying to win on a technical point and ignoring objective reality and whats actually being discussed. Those things don't need heavy regulation because they aren't being used to commit murder on that scale or even at all really.

Whats being discussed > Gun control because guns can be used to kill a lot of people very easily.

What you did > Bring in irrelevant examples that are in no way similar to guns because they don't let you kill people as easily.

I am arguing > Regulating guns will help save lives by removing dangerous weapons from the hands of crazies and YES criminals as well.


You are attempting to say my thinking is invalid by drawing illusory counter examples of things that are dangerous which are in no way comparable.

if you think that guns being completely unregulated is totally fine then presumably you are okay with rocket launchers being something that can be privately owned. Tanks as well right? After all the only change is the scale of the damage they can do.

Edit: Ahhhh, Greg... Cars have a legitimate purpose. They are used for transport they kill people by accident. Guns have no legitimate purpose except for killing things. It's not fucking inconsistent to have more than one criteria when evaluating stuff. Fucking christ.

double edit: fuck this i'm out.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Amake

I was thinking everyone who personally has a problem with it could get out of there. Which seems to be nearly everyone. Seems weird that this culture is so contrary to what any of its individual members want it to be, and you still defend that cultural identity.

I've long thought there's a strange divide between the United States as a country in itself on one hand and its people on the other, when the people usually should be the extent of what a country is. Any thoughts?

My thoughts are that you seem to be incredibly ignorant about the American people. This is hilarious considering that the two sides of the argument in this thread have been mostly made up against Americans on the pro-gun side debating mostly non-Americans on the anti-gun side, and it seems odd to me that you haven't really picked up on that.

Also, speaking as an American in favor of much stricter gun control laws, I can't exactly say I appreciate a bunch of people using a single homicidal maniac's oversensationalized rampage and an exaggerated, outside impression of our nation's violent crime rates to wag their fingers at us about the folly of one of our nation's founding principles, regardless of how outdated and unnecessary that principle might be, no more than I'm sure any of you enjoys Americans rudely telling you what's wrong with your countries.

And I get that you're trying to help save us foolish Americans from ourselves, but to be honest it's amazingly insensitive. It's our people that got killed here, and it's a horrible, tragic thing that happened, but it's our problem, and shaming the general American public over it because of the slim chance a crazy person wouldn't have come up with any number of other ways to murder a bunch of people if he hadn't had access to guns isn't entirely welcome.

[POS Industries]

I'm also going to go ahead and close the thread since this discussion is going exactly nowhere.