"Nukes, Bio-Weapons, and Poisonous Chemicals Don't Kill People. People Kill People." Do You See How Stupid that Argument Is?

[Anonymous]

The "right" to bear arms must of necessity (logical necessity) include the right of the individual to their very own B-52 bomber (see image). Mines, poison gas, and anti-tank weapons as well. After all, it does say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; it doesn't specify which arms, so presumably it includes all of them.

Oh, but don't worry. I'm sure that we can trust civilians with their very own arsenals of WMD's, especially if they don't have a criminal record, and imposing access restrictions on those "law-abiding citizens" would just mean that the thugs, criminals and gangsters would be able to obliterate entire nations.

Whilst a gun may need a nutcase to pull the trigger to wipe out (for example) an entire classroom, without a gun the crazy killer in question wouldn't be able to kill as many as quickly and as efficiently. THAT is the difference a gun makes, and no, there are no good reasons to ban kitchen knives as well, or cars (and don't be the person who reveals his/her utter stupidity by asking that question here). Kitchen knives and cars serve a useful purpose; guns do not.

And I don't want to hear whingers complain that I'm not a U. S. citizen! So what? That's irrelevant to the case, the argument being made here.

Note: To any moderator who sees this, I am not "trolling" here. My question is perfectly legitimate, and I'd like an answer to it. I say this because one of my recent questions was removed, and then restored, because it was (kind of) similar.

Updates

4 mo

My point is this. The choice of tool used to accomplish this specific task (i. e. mass murder) makes all the difference to the eventual outcome (i. e. number of people dead). How any reasonable person could deny this really obvious fact is truly astonishing.
A person with a gun who just has to pull a trigger will kill many more within a shorter amount of time than someone with just a knife (or their bare hands).

[Sargentcaptain]

> The "right" to bear arms must of necessity (logical necessity) include the right of the individual to their very own B-52 bomber

Based.

> Whilst a gun may need a nutcase to pull the trigger to wipe out (for example) an entire classroom, without a gun the crazy killer in question wouldn't be able to kill as many as quickly and as efficiently.

Ah yes, we'll make it illegal so the problem will disappear. Why don't you just make murder illegal then? Oh wait.

> THAT is the difference a gun makes, and no, there are no good reasons to ban kitchen knives as well

Oh boy, no bad things ever happened with those. Don't ask why knives are kept on a chain in China, don't go looking up stats on Britain and Ireland for the last century, their gangs and just lone psychos.

> And I don't want to hear whingers complain that I'm not a U. S. citizen! So what? That's irrelevant to the case, the argument being made here.

Non Americans complaining about one of the core principles of American society, now why would anyone bring that up.

> "Nukes, Bio-Weapons, and Poisonous Chemicals Don't Kill People. People Kill People." Do You See How Stupid that Argument Is?

The argument is absolutely fucking correct. Weapons are tools. Tools, last time I checked, are inanimate objects. As for the dogshit 'argument', look at the famously peaceful American Indians, Mayans, fucking anyone ever. Murders happen with or without guns.

If guns were illegal criminals would use guns. Who fucking knew criminals don't give a shit about the law. Without using a gun, law abiding citizens like Kyle Rittenhouse would have been murdered, guess what, skateboards can be used to kill someone. But here's the best part, in that situation a guy had a gun there, when he wasn't legally carrying, and the guy probably would have shot Rittenhouse if it weren't for Rittenhouse's, magical powers of removing illegal guns from existence. Oh no, I'm sorry, I got that last part wrong, Rittenhouse summoned a police officer to protect him. Oh no, wait, that's wrong too. Can you correct me here?

[JacobJordan]

I love questions like this because it showcases the naivity of humans. People intent on killing people are already breaking the law. So what would making guns illegal do? This is the same type of silliness as something i have seen a few times. Some women have said that they need to implement a curfew for men to have all men inside by x time so women can go outside safely. Here is the thing only law abiding men would follow such a rule. So what would happen when the non law abiding men were out and saw a woman they wanted to rape? There would be no one to stop him. Back to your topic. If we make guns illegal only those who follow the laws will listen to that. Now you have a shooter who can and will shoot up anything anywhere anytime and only the police could stop him. Average police response time is something like 3 minutes. In 3 minutes a hell of a lot of people can be dead. Where as if you have armed civilians they can (and will) stop the assailant before the police arrive. So which would you prefer? A mass shooter who can brazenly murder many people before the police can show up or armed civilians who will willingly lay down their lives to stop the mass shooter? Because those are the only 2 outcomes. Also nukes, gas, and bio-weapons don't kill people. You can walk up to any of those and nothing happens. Same thing with a gun. It requires outside interference for any of those to work. I mean really shovels can be used to kill people just as easily as a gun. So can knives, hammers, nails, screws, cars, bikes, branches, pencils, swords the list goes on are we going to make it illegal to own everything that has the potential to be used as a murder weapon? What about hands? I can strangle someone just as easily as shoot them... should hands be illegal? You see how silly it sounds?

[IrishStewed]

But still, a person has to push the button to launch all those nukes, and someone has to give him that order. So it is still a person/persons who kill everyone, as an arsenal of nukes can sit there until the crack of doom and not harm anyone. When some person, the President or some nutty dictator, push the "launch" button, it falls on him and no one else.

[FreyaRed]

It's just dumb when someone who attacks your neighbors has sophisticated weapons but you and your neighbors don't have any. This is valid individually like politically.
Ideology won't save your life.

[blueonblack22]

Oh come on your analogy is complete asinine bullshit and you know it.

Sure the government has bombs, nukes, etc. But if they want to control a territory/resources do they usually just nuke it first?

Fucking Putin could do that to the Ukraine and he hasn’t. Reason why is doesn’t want to 1) nuke territory he wants to control 2) have the rest of the world attacking Russia if he used nukes/chemical warfare.

So what’s easier to control? Armed citizens or unarmed citizens? Adolf Hitler knew the truth on that one. Why do you think he banned private gun ownership during the 3rd Reich? Who is easier to oppress and exterminate? Armed citizens or unarmed citizens?

Grown ass women thinking this way their 30s smdh. You are not 19 and getting freshly indoctrinated on a college campus. Grow up.

[milyjohn]

Forks make people fat.
Pencils make spelling mistakes.
Cars make people drive drunk.

[blueonblack22]

@milyjohn yep exactly

[blueonblack22]

The QA was a fan of Fidel Castro so I’m not surprised she would ask this question.

Capitalism isn’t perfect but communism KILLS and oppresses. But these people are so infantile, naive and idealistic they will never get that through their thick skulls. They keep on envisioning a “utopia” that’s never existed nor will ever exist. They think we should all be ruled but a “benevolent” group of elitists who know better what’s right for their citizens vs the citizens themselves.

She also completely ignored any cold hard inconvenient statistic that might goes against her “vision”.

For example there are now over 400 million guns in the USA and the population is 330 million. So if the government bans all guns do you think they will all just magically disappear and gun violence will end? Only law abiding citizens will be disarmed. This will embolden criminals. Just look at what goes on in Mexico. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Do you think the cartels give a sh*t about gun laws?

[Asker]

You really do know how to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing at all. Congrats! :)

[Asker]

@milyjohn They're stupid comparisons, and you know it. If you'd bothered to actually READ what I wrote above, you would see why I make the case that the choice of tool used to accomplish a task in this particular instance makes a very BIG difference to the outcome.
BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG - four people dead in as many seconds.
Someone with a knife - stands around looking confused when people see him and run for safety.

[milyjohn]

Are you happy? You got to shit on America and "Whingers." Very typical of this site.

[blueonblack22]

@siri137 We should ship you over to Tijuana where virtually no law abiding civilian owns guns and coincidentally it was for a last few years the murder capitol of the world. I’ve been there too by the way and it’s no joke.

But I know it’s about a “feeling” to you @siri137. You are 33 and you still can’t comprehend the cold reality of the world. You believe in some sort of “utopian vision” of the world.

I guess you being from New Zealand which is an enclave (very nice place though from what I’ve heard) I can see why you can get deluded that what works for a more homogenous society will somehow magically work for a very large, very populated, very disrift and very “diverse” population.

It does NOT magically work that way. Just ask Sweden when they took in all those Syrian refugees and saw their crime and rape rates skyrocket.

[DarkWinterNights]

I don’t think now is the time to talk about disarming people. The entire world is destabilizing, Europe is preparing for war, Sweden is trying to stabilize mass gang wars on its streets, Russia is preparing to wipe Ukraine off the map. North Korea and China are prepping to become the dominant power in the East as soon as America can’t protect itself. The Middle East is devolving deeper into the 3rd world, mass migration will make sure that the United States never has an universally accepted election or president again. All while our governments have been repeatedly exposed over the last 3 years as being both extremely corrupt and inept.



If you don’t have a gun right now, you better find a way to get one. cause I wouldn’t want to be at the mercy of literally everyone else when this impending chaos comes home.

[Somoneelse]

I actually agree with the statement. People do kill people. And the way they do it is with tools like nukes, bioweapons, guns, knifes etc. But in the end; its the person who performs the action. In history, people killed eachother with sticks and stones, with guiliotines, with guns, with swords, with nukes, with tanks, by riding a car through a crowd, with suicidebombers, with f*cking airplanes through buildings (9/11). People perform the action, with what they do it is only a tool). weapons are weapons. You can use them for good, but also for bad stuff.

[Somoneelse]

I've never seen a nuke, weapon, airplane, knife or swords kill someone by just laying/standing somewhere. Only when people use it. not by itself.

[Joshydavid25]

The average citizen doesn't have access to WMDs and yes the logic still stands because WMDs don't unless themselves.. Just like guns don't shoot themselves.. It's the people that use them for that intent.. If you feel afraid, then just get yourself a gun.. And someb with a gun could stop that person from killing a room full of people.. Or if another country decided to invade, citizens have the power to protect themselves.. Or if the government got out of hand the citizens have the power to protect themselves..

[strateguy632]

not stupid. people use nuclear weapons. if not they JUST SIT in the silo AS THEY HAVE FOR DECADES. they do not kill people. the problem is when saddam hussein has chemical weapons of mass destruction WMD-s then "people" kill by chemicals that is the problem.
your interpretation "all" still would need a license like gun license!! and UNABLE to get license for the other weapons. check mate.

[DarkWinterNights]

Citizens do have WMD’s, nuclear and chemical weapons. Who does she think makes them for The State?

[BoopBoopBeep]

Except nukes don't kill people. We have huge stockpiles of them. Nobody was ever killed by them sitting there.

Individuals authorized their use and other individuals dropped them. They are inanimate objects. They have killed no one of their own volition.

[Miristheiss]

Your analogy is dumb.

These are weapons of warfare that ONLY belong to the governments. Private citizens will never have nuclear weapons. Neither do police officers.

Hand guns and rifles will ALWAYS be tools to defend your homes, lives and properties.

These 2 things have NOTHING to do with each other and to try and compare them is asinine.

[RedInnocent68]

Funny how no one who obsesses over the 2nd amendment gives much weight to ‘well regulated’ or ‘free state’… 🤔

[Asker]

Yes, the "well-regulated" bit seems to be ignored quite a lot for some strange reason.

[DarkWinterNights]

Actually if we took that “well-regulated” bit seriously, the government would help us pay for our firearms, ammunition and training.

The “traitors” who had just fought a civil war against an tyrannical king are not going to make the 2nd amendment to their constitution, give the new, but potentially corruptible government power to control its peoples arms. It defeats the ENTIRE purpose of the constitution and the 2nd amendment.

[love_conquers_lust]

Why would mods remove this. I think you should be allowed to speak out against it.

Our military budget would be a massive waste of money if other countries would stop trying to develop their military. No reason for us to deescalate until it bankrupts us falling behind other countries.

[Asker]

This question isn't about the U. S. military though. Besides, the U. S. spends more on its military than the next 10 nations combined, so it's not likely you'll "fall behind".

[Danny_dan92]

The weapons sitting there on a shelf, bunker, etc.




Don’t kill people. It’s their use, aka the people behind it that are the killer.




So are you saying we should ban kitchen knives and tools like hammers should be banned? Cause by your logic they should. Cause you can also kill people with those tools.




Guns, should be tools. Tools to kill people that want to do harm to you, others and or your loved ones. Not, to kill innocent people

[Danny_dan92]

That being said, if you asked me my opinion on WMD’s specifically?

I don’t see them the same way I view say firearms, grenades, breaching charges, tanks, jets, etc.

They are their own classification of military equipment/technology. And their sole purpose is mass destruction. It’s in their name. That being said, I don’t like that country’s have them…. Unfortunately though, we reached a point where every country that DOES have them, will never get rid of them. Because in the military we have this thing called “fire superiority” and a country having weapons like WMD’s gives them that. The enemy is less likely to fight back when you have that leverage.

[DextroShade]

Guns have multiple purposes: hunting, self-defense, shooting for sport, and an implicit check against government tyranny. Private citizens in the United States are NOT allowed to own chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. You just stay in whatever gun-grabbing authoritarian shithole country you are in while we in America enjoy our freedom!

[jshm2]

The opposite, kiddo. The right to bear arms - not ammo.

Also the constitution is only a guide for the laws, and has been amended many times. It is not a law in of itself.

So you've sold your ass for nothing, with your outburst.

[Asker]

What would be the point in owning a gun if you couldn't buy ammo for it? Your comment doesn't make much sense KIDDO.

[QuietRunner]

I would like to enforcement the well regulated militia part.

Weight standards, drills, monthly to quarterly training

Remembering which nation you defending and why

History lessons

This is needed for keeping and bearing arms.

It used to be done in the United States

[exitseven]

If I could buy one of these I definitely would.

Outta My Way

[goaded]

This old man had a Panther in his basement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E6Hd_-rPzE

[exitseven]

@goaded how cool would that be.!

[spartan55]

@goaded
Lol... you mean a PANZER tank...😂 😂 😂

[goaded]

@spartan55 Panzerkampfwagen V Panther

[Drewtate]

That is true. Someone has to push the button.

Suicide doesn't kill people, hillary Clinton does.

[Paul_in_Indy]

No, there isn’t anything absurd about this. You aren’t thinking it through.

[Amur8711]

If the Government and Military has them the So should We the People. Thats its purpose, to make sure our government knows that they can't just subjugate its people. The people that give them their power.

[Amur8711]

But also, it is that easy to delete a person who decides to use their gun to commit mass murder.

Also, guns are used to save more lives each year that are taken.

[Anonymous]

That’s true, but if a potentially hostile nation has all of those things and yours doesn’t, you’re fucked if they attack you.

[FunkyMonkee]

The difference is, they don't need people to unleash them!

[FunkyMonkee]

Let's say the killer has a gun and, instead of shooting a room full of people, he forces them to go to a body of water where he has a long rope waiting. He makes them all sit on the ground while he ties the rope around all their ankles. Once he's got them all tied together, he uses some kind of machinery to lift them, via the rope, off the ground and then lower them, head first, into the body of water. After leaving them that way for about 3:00, they all die. What's the murder weapon? The rope? The device that lowered them into the water? The gun? The water? The fact that the air could no longer find its way into their lungs? Their own inability to gang up and beat the piss out of him? Or, was it the guy that did all of that to them?
Okay, the water did the actual killing so, do we ban water because it killed all those people? Do we ban rope? The machinery?
There was an episode of, "Columbo" where Robert Culp kills Dean Stockwell by hitting him in the head with a block of ice which he tosses into the swimming pool Dean was in to get rid of the murder weapon. Do we ban ice blocks? Who killed Dean? Was it Bobby or the ice?
Now, you're in a room full of people and one of them whips out a machine gun and starts mowing you all down but, some of you manage to get away to a temporary hiding place. What, now, goes through your head? Do you hope that someone suddenly comes in with their own gun to shoot this guy or do you hope someone can sneak up on him and noogy him into submission?
A couple years ago, a psycho started shooting people in a church in Texas. More people would've been killed than what he DID kill if it hadn't been for other people in the church that were carrying guns that used them to kill (or, at least, disable) him! The fact is, criminals with guns will not be as prone to go after people in areas where those that live/work there are apt to carry their own guns!

[Forceinhand]

No it does not by logical neccesity mean that. You're making a fallacious argument on logic and comparing apples and pears.