Yes I believe it because its absolutely true, guns are inanimate objects they do not just go off, people use them as a tool and some abuse it no different then those who have killed with an axe or a knife or a bat or a car, or used battery acid to assualt people, or planes etc etc etc. The fact is if you look banning guns has not helped the issue, guns are all but banned in chicago yet more people are killed their from gun violence (and violence in general) then in the iraq war earning its nickname chiraq. Australia has banned guns but hasn't seen a decrease in gun violence and while its been moderatley successful, the fact is it has a third of the population of america and a little over half the size of california. With a smaller boarder it is easier to regulate and control what goes in and out america obviously doesn't have that ability so it would be pointless (and incredibly expensive) to try. The issue is why people kill each other rather then getting rid of guns which really would only function as a feel good solution with no actual practical change in the violence.
Sorry, after australia I was reffering to england not australia (about the size remark). My mistake.(I was interrupted)
I agree. But as I see it, by handing out guns to everyone, one could as well give babies access to a certain red button that unleashes nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
This question is as useless as asking which came first the chicken or the egg. Guns cannot harm without someone being responsible. However, people are so unpredictable; how can you determine if a person can be a responsible gun owner? Sane people can have mental breakdowns or lose their temper or accidentally forget to lock their gun safes. Look at all the accidental gun deaths involving children. I think only a small percentage of us truly need the protection of a gun. The rest of us should leave it up to trained authorities.
Sorry for asking a useless question :P
Oh thanks Hun. I agree with ur opinion. :)
Yes I agree with the quote. People want to blame a inanimate object *smh*. No, it's not guns who kill people it's people who kill people. Plus there's plenty of ways other people kill other people without a gun. They make guns illegal they might as well make knifes, rocks, belts, and other things people use to kill other people illegal aswell *smh*. It's not doing anyone any good making guns illegal because innocent people need it for protection because there's other killers who get there hands on guns anyways.
Guns don't kill people. But they enable people to kill each other a lot easier. With guns, you can shoot many people from a distance. Give a shooter a knife instead and see how many people they manage to stab to death. My guess would be that they wouldn't be able to kill even half of everyone they would have killed otherwise. Stabbing someone to death takes strength, often requiring more than one stab if you don't aim it perfectly. And by that time, lots of people are already like 50-100 meters away.
Exactly my point :)
Not to mention that with a bit of luck and skill, you could possibly even disarm the killer and pin them to the ground if they have a knife. But with a gun there's that immediate threat, you can't get close to them and all they have to do is aim and pull the trigger if you take one step towards them.
Funny you should mention the knife thing, considering in the US there are more people killed by knifes per year then by rifles.
And you must not know a lot about the human body to make that assumption about having to aim perfecting. The human body is riddled with vital areas that's the glory of a knife you don't have to aim perfectly, neck, kidney's lungs, spinal cord, guts, heart or surrounding area, tons of areas in the leg were if stabbed you'll bleed out quickly. All easy areas to reach and all it takes is one stab or a stab and a pull while still inside the person, also a blade does not requite strength, not really,.
The human body is incredibly weak and blades cut through them very easily, I should know I train in them. And FYI you can very easily run up to someone pull out your blade and stab them before they even have chance unhook their holster, pull out their sidearm and take the saftey off and aim. It all happens in a split second.
@Phoenix98
And how many knife massacres are there, compared to mass shootings?
I didn't mean ~*~perfectly~*~ as in you have to get it right on the millimeter, more so that if you want instant kill in just one stab, it can be at least somewhat difficult if your victim is avoiding you and struggling. As in the perfect kill, only one stab and moving on to your next victim within seconds, and that takes some training. And depending on how sharp the blade is and where you're striking, yeah it does require some strength. More strength than it does to pull a tiny trigger. And it takes strength to not be knocked out by your opponent, too. With a knife, it's a lot easier to strike back as a victim. With a gun, you could easily get a 200 lbs 6' guy on his knees just by telling him to do so, even if you yourself are 5' and weigh 100 lbs.
As for your last paragraph, sure. But weak argument. If someone is already aiming at you with a gun, it takes an equal amount of time to pull out a knife.
@Phoenix98 and by the time you've pulled out your knife, the person aiming at you could have shot you like 10 times already.
It's not a weak argument at all considering that argument can be backed up by trained military soldiers and combat veterans with far more experience in both firearms and blades then you or I can and have backed up that argument before, they've even tested it. And you can pull out a knife while running towards someone faster then a standing person can pull out a pistol especially when most people will not have it aimed at someone but rather safely holstered, whether you want to believe it not doesn't matter.
Actually there have a been a few mass attacks attempted with knives, also even though mass shootings happen more. More people die from knife related attacks in general every year then by rifles even adding in the deaths from mass shootings this number does not supersede knife deaths.
You are right though about the example of the 200lbs and 100lbs guys though I will give you that but I've seen the opposite done with knives to.
@Phoenix98 ACTUALLY, bullshit.
www.fbi.gov/.../...victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
More people die from firearms than knives. In 2013, total firearm-related murders = 8,454. Knives or other cutting instruments = 1,490. So roughly 1/8 of the amount who die because of shootings.
Depends on the year I can post stuff that says otherwise going back even farther.
www.infowars.com/.../
www.breitbart.com/.../
Either way people have the right to keep themselves save whether it's from a hammer, gun or knife. And no matter what way you slice it no pun intended that will be true.
@Phoenix98 except that what's supposed to keep them safe is what's killing them.
@Phoenix98 Speaking of knife, regardless of the statistics, the knife is nowhere near as dangerous as the gun. Theresa Saldana was stabbed 10 times with a knife on the torso and she survived. That was back in 1982, and she only recently died, so she survived for 33 years. Whereas, 3 gun shots, can kill you within hours.
Sorry, 34 years***
@Hollywood-Glam So a man stopped a mass shooting and in the process of stopping it he was shot 7 times around the chest and stomach areas and survived, so what's your point?
@Phoenix98 much more rare to survive from several bullets compared to several stabs.
@Phoenix98 ok, hit me with the statistics then and surprise me.
@Phoenix98 Exactly what lumos said, much more rare to survive gunshots.
@Phoenix98 if you get to a doctor... in time. Might be too late by the time you do get to a doctor. And tell that to the 8,454 people who died in 2013 by gunshot wounds.
Opinion
73Opinion
Yes, unless it's a robotic gun that can shoot things itself. Still a gun is a tool that makes killing people easier vs other weapons, along with you don't need to be close to them at all.
I understand how people want the right to own a gun but honestly there are just too many idiots that can't handle owning one. Yet they still will own it and cause accidents.
Cars don't cause crashes, people cause crashes.
I don't understand why guns are the only tool that is blamed when users abuse them. If a roof collapses, you don't blame the staple gun the contractor used. If you don't take enough notes for a test, do you blame your pen and notebook? Since I tripped while running, do I blame the sneaker company, the shoelaces, or the construction workers who laid asphalt that wasn't ideal for jogging and exercise?
I can understand the argument that guns kill people, just like I can understand an argument that cars cause speeding tickets, and clothes make people look fat. While it is true, it's only half of the equation.
As I understand it, the equation looks like this:
xFirearm + xShooter = xTool (s)
[Where x ≥ 1]
If you agree with that, then you might see my extrapolation:
xFirearm + 0(xShooter (s)) = 0Tool (s)
[Where x ≥ 1]
If there is no one to operate the tool, it is useless.
If Ferrari doesn't hire an F1 driver, their car won't magically win at Monaco, just like a horse without a jockey can't win at the Triple Crown events.
To sum up, I agree with the quote. If a tool doesn't have someone to use it, it's really just a 1:1 scale model.
Blaming the guns is insane. Unless the government also abandons its guns, then all gun control legislation is 100% hypocrisy to begin with.
Countless times, bad guys with or without guns have been stopped by one thing alone: a good guy with a gun. "Gun-free zones" are armed thugs' favorite places to host a shootout. Without guns allowed, what security is able to fight back?
It takes 18 seconds for a trained thug to break into a house and start killing everyone inside. It takes 30 seconds for a homeowner to load a gun and fight back. It takes 8 minutes for police to respond to a 911 call. You do the math.
The Orlando gunman, Omar Mateen, had ties to Marcus Richardson - a man who was also very close to being on an FBI watchlist. Their common threads included ISIS and the Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary, which trains black Muslims in much the way the Aryan nation does - targeting the prison population to win converts.
The legitimate market must never be infringed upon, for the black market (how Omar got his weapons) will never go away. To place guns on prohibition will end even worse than the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930s.
You should all rewatch Cap 2. Zola was right: if enough derelict leaders permit enough sowing of the seeds of chaos, then men will give up their freedom all too willingly.
Except, ISIS will not stop. And our government has been taken over by the Brotherhood of Evil Muslims. The well-regulated militia of us all is the only resistance left. Finnicum was only the beginning. The slaughter will get worse, unless we stop it.
Nobody was blaming guns. Well at least I wasn't.
The White House was.
People kill people with guns
People kill people with knives
People kill people with cars
People kill people by getting drunk and beating the crap out of their spouse
People kill people by drinking and driving
People kill people by texting and driving
People kill people by selling them drugs
People is the common factor here.
Well said.
Well, that's common sense.
Tell me again how yhat shooter would have killed 50 people without a gun
@slimstiffy they're called terrorists. They use bombs, planes, and even chemical weapons. If guns aren't available to them, they'll make their weapons of mass destruction.
@snowboarder720
Yeah but im talking about your average joe who doesn't have that kind of connections, money, and access to such weapons. Still has access to guns.
@slimstiffy When there's a will, there's a way.
@snowboarder720 its still better not to have a shortcut
Passing laws does nothing to stop a criminal. That's why they are a criminal.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to get firearms makes things worse. In a perfect world, nobody would have guns, but we do not live in a perfect world. That said, since nobody being armed isn't a possibility, the next best thing is everybody being armed.
Whether or not you like guns isn't the point. No matter how much you don't believe in something, that doesn't make it stop existing. Not believing in gravity doesn't make it go away, and neither does not believing in owning a firearm. People kill people, they always have. The tools they use to accomplish this aren't to blame.
My thoughts exactly.
Same with alcohol prohibition.
Gun could be used for hunting & self defence, or it could be used to take innocent lives. Same goes with knife, you can cut food with it or stab someone. Cook with fire or burn a house down. Its not the object but how it is used. An individual makes that choice.
However guns don't kill people, but guns do make it a lot easier to kill people. Also make it easier to kill multiple people in short period of time. I think Americans need to toughen up their gun laws. Make sure nutjobs don't get their hands on them. But if a person wants a gun he'll find a gun regardless.
Yes. :P
obviously people kill people, but I think other people hate guns because it motivates people to actually commit to killing other people because a gun makes the task so easy. If there weren't a gun available, the killer may not be motivated enough to carry out the crime because of the difficulties, that depends on the individual though and how willing they are.
@Gommers yeah the knife attack rates are high over there
@Gommers its all good
I agree. With guns, there comes motivation to kill.
As someone who carries a gun on me every day, I can't say I've ever had the notion to shoot people just because I can. That's not even remotely close to being true.
@GnarCute muggers will always exist but it's not on the same level of being a mass murderer is it?
And yeah we have very low numbers of knife crime here in the UK but I do know men who've tried to commit mass murders with knives have been stopped by other members of the public or cops. It's easier to stop someone weilding a knife than someone who's shooting people.
@Blonde401 thats where the motivation, in my opinion, comes from, it's so much easier to carry out with a gun, hence increases motivation if they had the intent to begin with.
@Outofthegrey I'm not talking about people like you with concealed carry licenses, I'm trying to get one myself.
I'm talking about people who already have the intent to kill and commit mass murder, a gun makes it all more enticing.
@Blonde401 Do you know what I carry in my car? A telescopic baton. I've had people pull a gun on me while driving and when I've held that up, rolled down the window, and whipped it to full length the person with the gun would speed off. Most people with a gun are pussies and when put face to face with someone that would actually beat them to a bleeding pulp will back off and run away.
I don't carry or own a gun right now because I don't need one. I'm probably in the process of buying one for self defense when I move out again though because of race relations in my country. I honestly expect violence against whites to get pretty bad here in the next decade or so if not go to a small civil war, I'd rather be prepared than dead.
Will I concealed carry? Probably not, again I have the baton for bad areas of town.
The quote is technically correct in a sense but I disagree with how it is being used.
People using that quote are implying that tougher laws on guns won't decrease gun related deaths.
If less people have guns, that means less people will shoot guns. Hello?
OK so how do you plan on getting guns away from criminals
Actually gun violence is worse in areas with stricter gun control in the US
Kind of like how alcohol prohibition increased violent crimes rates.
@DaddyRollingStone by putting laws in place where they can't have guns and then catching and arresting them if they do, hello?
@BelleGirl21 confirmation biased reporting hello?
Less guns means less gun deaths. This is an irrefutable fact. If people do not have guns, they cannot shoot them
That's great, but how
Ok just pretend like Chicago doesn't exist lol
@BelleGirl21 Yep. I guess gun grabbers forgot to realize if a felon wants a gun they call one of their friends and buy it out of the trunk of a car, no background checks, no ID, no serial numbers. They really think a criminal is going to go to a reputable gun store
I totally agree with everything you said, sexualchrist
@DaddyRollingStone Not everyone has those kind of connections. The fact is if it's harder to legally obtain a gun, less people will obtain them and that means less people will shoot them. It's as simple as that.
@BelleGirl21 You have to take into account that places with tougher gun laws in a country with shit loads of guns will have more gun related crimes reported due to the laws against guns.
So if someone is caught with a gun and its illegal, it will be reported. In a state where it is not illegal, it will not be reported.
So statistics like that don't change the fact that less guns mean less gun related deaths.
If you make it harder to obtain a gun, less people will obtain them. Hello?
Actually the homicide rates go up.
@BelleGirl21 What do you suggest? Give everyone more guns and see how many less people get shot? Hello?
Homicide rates do not go up. Wake up to yourself.
crimeresearch.org/.../
Maybe you should educate yourself. At best crime rates stay level with gun control. I'm not at all saying everyone should have a gun. But law abiding moral citizens should be allowed to protect themselves
en.m.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate @BelleGirl21 Look. Compare the U. S with another developed country. Per 100,000 people in the U. S there are about 10-11 people murdered by shooting. In Australia it's less than 1 in every 100,000.
I wonder if that has to do with the fact the U. S has so many guns? (sarcasm)
You don't need to go any further than Wikipedia
@BelleGirl21 You also don't need to look any further than what happened in America the other day. A guy strolled into a store and was able to buy an ASSAULT RIFLE. Why? Like oh my God, why would that be legal? It's utter stupidity for that to be allowed. Obviously, he then goes and shoots a bunch of people. Hello?
Answer this question: If there were no guns, how many people would be killed with a gun?
Hello?
@sexualchrist Nice try. However when there are 280 MILLION GUNS in the USA alone what are you going to do?
@sdistotallyme make them illegal and start the process of repossession. Hello?
Please don't tell me you think Eugene Stoner designed his new rifle to be a "deadly weapon of unnecessary power".
If he really had that in mind when making the AR-15, you can bet the resulting rifle would not just have what you see on it. It would have a larger caliber (perhaps even the capability to launch explosive shells) for higher lethality with its rounds, and a bayonet lug so that the user can stab and slash others when the rifle runs out of ammo. Why, it could even have an electric bayonet for added "shock" factor.
Then you're against all semi-automatic civilian rifles...
But yes, I agree that there should be harsher penalties for being seen with AR-15s and other semi-auto rifles in public. To be fair, open carry of semi-auto rifles should be strictly prohibited. I mean, I myself as a gun advocate don't see why one should be open carrying them.
@sexualchrist. I dare you to make a profile name that is "sexualmuhammed"
@sdistotallyme maybe I will if I get banned
@sexualchrist Take before and screenshots (with your old and new screennames). Politically biased censorship has already been exposed on Google & Facebook. I know it exists on GAG (I've had posts removed although I wasn't threatening and/or being overly profane). This could be a good case study, possibly a good viral articles.
Turning it into an either/or proposition is fallacious, and both sides of the debate often do it.
Like usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle -- there are elements of both at play.
For me, mentally unstable people kill people, and the use of guns makes them infinitey more efficient in doing so.
My point exactly. 😛
The SCOTUS considers owning and bearing arms an inalienable right.
Thus even a judge can't stop criminals from buying assault rifles.
But cops can shoot them , of course.
That's the kind of 'Murica some wanted... and got
Last I checked, gun legislation in Paris is incredibly strict. If I'm not mistaken, you have to provide a legitimate reason to posses a gun in order to acquire one. That clearly didn't stop a mass shooting from occurring.
Unfortunately, gun laws do very little to deter determined terrorists from committing mass murder. We need to focus more on security than on firearm legislation.
A gun cannot point itself, lock onto a target, and fire it's own trigger. Those are all actions done by the bearer of the firearm. A gun doesn't intend on killing, it's an inanimate object with no free will or ability to think. The person holding the gun does all of that.
u If the shooter didn't have a gun, he could have set the club on fire. He could have walked in and exploded a bomb.
If someone gets stabbed, do we say "let's ban knives"?
9/11 hijackers didn't need guns...
That the most corrupt politician in post WWII history supplied arms to militias that later morphed into the taliban and than later into ISIS. In his own words, Reagan called the Mujahadin; the preliminary to the, taliban the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers." He than went on to supply them RPG's to knock out Soviet helicopters. These are the same explosives they now strap to their chest or put in the trunk of their cars to kill innocent Americans and Iraqi's, Afghani's and Pakistani's alike.
It's harder to kill people with knives but yeah, I get that people kill
Its still a lot harder to do than with guns. And your average guy doesn't have access to bombs
@slimstiffy Knives, fists and feet, blunt objects like a hammer, strangulation, fire, smothering, poison, drowning, narcotics, push from heights, push in front of oncoming train/traffic.
Yeah but a single man can't kill 50 men like that , and certainly not this fast. Witj a gun you can finish the job in a less than a. minute. which makes them so dangerous
@slimstiffy So do you think we should make guns illegal?
Actually its YOU, not WE, where i live i dont know if they are illegal but its restricted i think. You dont see anyone here walking with guns.
Its your country, your choice to decide. Keep in mind the us has some of the highest rates of gun violence and murder, around the world, despite being a first world, western nation.
I agree, but unlike many people from the USA I'm completely against the free sales of weapons. Although I'm in favour of giving a permit to any decent person who needs a weapon for example since they live in a very rural area and need some means of self protection.
But of course, it's the guy who pulls the trigger who decides to shoot :-(
Exactly.
I disagree with this quote, guns are designed with the sole purpose of killing in mind. But, I also support the second amendment. The right to own firearms is a constitutionally protected liberty, and I will always oppose trampling on those.
And I'd also warn people against reactionary politics, remember that's why the patriot act became law, that's why we invaded Afghanistan, and in both cases only a few months after 9/11 America's strongly opposed those decisions.
Furthermore, firearms are responsible for roughly 30,000 deaths a year in the U. S., that's a large number for sure. But, did you know cars are responsible for 30,800 deaths a year in America? Or that 30,000 people in a country of 319 million people represents less than 00.01% of Americans.
So if you ask me, should I sacrifice one if my civil liberties for a marginal amount of safety, my answer is no.
To put it very simply, if you think the saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is a valid argument against gun control, you should probably be wearing a crash helmet for your own safety.
Literally no one is saying guns kill people of their own accord. That's idiotic. But a person is going to find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to kill dozens of people at once without some sort of firearm. Try committing mass murder with a knife. Not gonna happen. An assault rifle? Much easier.
Enough with the 'guns don't cause violence, so gun control is bad' argument. Guns don't cause violence, but when the only thing stopping any given person from committing mass murder is whether they want to or not, there's a serious problem.
Um but I wasn't I was asking a simple question. 😒
I don't think guns should be banned, but there is no reason for civilians to have assault rifles. I'd be all for more strict control as well.
I mean... guns clearly don't kill people. Neither do bombs. Or nukes. Or land mines. So clearly anyone should be able to carry and operate explosive devices to their hearts content. Sounds fun.
And to all those that bring up the second amendment... you had better not advocate the removal or banning of Muslims from the US. I wouldn't want you guys to sound like giant fucking hypocrites and not follow the first amendment.
We are not in the 1700s anymore.
Purpose of 2nd amendment was to make sure citizens were armed in case of tyrannical government. The people who wrote the Constitution finished fighting a war against a tyrannical government.
In times of war, it is perfectly sane to terminate the rights of a violent group of people who want to establish a caliphate and destroy western civilization. In WW2 Germans were banned from entering the USA as well as Japanese. And thank god they were.
@ModernDayCrusader I'm well aware the purpose of the second amendment. You are clearly confused.
We aren't in times of war, not that that is relevant. So according to you, it's sane and correct to kick people out of this country and ban over a billion people from setting foot on this soil, completely ignoring the first amendment but there are zero possible scenarios where taking guns away or making it more difficult to obtain them ever makes sense? How many more of these massacres have to happen?
The rest of what you wrote is idiotic. Germans and Japanese AREN'T RELIGIONS. We were at war with their countries. We aren't at war with the entire Muslim faith. Someone that was born and raised in America can at any time choose to follow the Muslim faith if they wanted to.
If people are going to vehemently defend one amendment regardless of the circumstance, they can't advocate ignoring another.
I do acknowledge that Islam is a religion and not a nation. But ISIS and other Islamic factions have declared war on us and have attacked our people several times.
You say we aren't in a time of war. Maybe not officially, but right now, Islam is waging war against western civilization.
I will advocate against Islam since it calls for the conquest of the west and non-Muslims. By Muslims infringing upon the rights of others and advocating for infringing on those rights, they forfeit their rights.
If you take away the guns, people will still find a way. Guns aren't gonna stop people from killing
People kill people, but guns make it easier to kill people. If there was a bow or a knife, there's no way the death toll would be that high
Same with alcohol prohibition.
guns don't directly kill people, people kill people of course... but the thing people fail to mention in this argument is people with access to guns kill people and no it doesn't matter what kind of access they have to guns, thats moot in point, just that they do have access to guns regardless. it should really be do guns kill people, or do people who have access to guns kill people?
People have to handle the guns. It's not the guns who do the killing, it's the people pulling the trigger. I agree that more restrictive measures should be made as far as who can and cannot purchase guns but you can't blame an inanimate object for something a person did.
It is true that people kill people and guns are mere tools, however, if people didn't have the tools (the guns) available to them, a lot less people will be killed every year in the US. It's that country that has the most problems of massacres, shootings, et cetera, of all the developed countries.
People kill people. Always have always will. Its not right but it hashas been happened for a long time. Yes a gun was involved but that doesn't mean we should take guns away. Where I'm from 99% of people use them to hunt with (feed their families). And protect their the home and families. Just because I carry a pistol on my hip doesn't mean I'm going to shoot everyone I disagree with or everyone that pisses me off. I use my pistol to protect myself and kids.
I agree but we still need restrictions. I'm a bartender and I've had fights break out, people breaking windows throwing bottles, using stools and whatnot.
A gun in this environment could easily have resulted in deaths. Thankfully, not even a hospital was needed in some instances.
Just a few weeks ago, a shootout ended up with a bouncer getting killed not too far from where I work.
I would not feel safe serving alcohol to people with weapons because they can escalate quickly.
People pull the trigger, true. But guns make it much easier to kill lots of people in a very short timespan. It also allows the killer to keep a distance from their victim, making it easy to emotionally detach themselves from the people they're killing.
Yes and no. Like the message they're trying to send guns don't kill people it's only a paperweight unless it's loaded and used. There must be someone there to pull the trigger.
However accidents do happen and yes like it says people kill people but the incident would be avoided if there was no gone to begin with. For instance a kid getrig a hold of it because they're parents didn't hide it well or just left it around.
That's like saying people who text while driving aren't at fault of causing wrecks because it's the phone that's at fault. A gun won't fire at someone unless someone pulls the trigger. Guns aren't problematic, it's the people wielding it that gives guns a bad reputation. I'm not a gun nut but I have an appreciation for guns. They're fun to shoot and that's really the main part for myself. Though I know they can be fun, I know they're pretty dangerous which is why I never keep a magazine inside the gun or bullets as well.
I wasn't saying ban all guns I was saying we should have stricter regulations. When they fall into the wrong hands they can be deadly.
I don't know... Like if you have records on imposing threats on people you should not be able to own a gun. If you have records of mental illness you should not be able to own a gun. May be a dumb idea and I'm sorry.
Don't be sorry. When they run a background check, they look into whether a person is has any mental illnesses that could lead to assaults or violent incidents. They check for criminal activity as well, so if you committed any type of illegal action that was considered as a serious offense, then that could lead to the person not being able to be granted the gun. If anything, I would suggest that maybe they could check on any type of group activity that a person is involved with. Such as clubs or organizations. Looking further into background checks like a family tree seeing if whether someone of a relative has committed illegal activity.
Ehhh no so much. Thats like saying smoking doesn't kill people, people kill people
The fact of the matter is a gun is a tempting tool to kill/injure someone with. Its clean, swift, powerful and can be used from a distance. A gun is designed to fatally wound a human
Yes because a gun is just a piece of metal and it cannot kill or hurt anyone unless I person puts bullets in it, aims it, and pulls the trigger. It's ridiculous to blame inanimate objects for horrible crimes that people commit
Also, banning guns wouldn't do anything but violate our constitutional rights and take guns away from law abiding citizens because criminals and terrorists don't abide by our laws and they'll always find ways to get guns. Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy are illegal yet you can get it in any city in the country so anyone who thinks making something illegal solves the problem is an idiot
Again, same thing will happen when they banned alcohol.
If there was no guns a guy would just wake up the next day with a sore face not be lying on a mortuary slab. Its ridiculous. Its called escalation. Gun deaths have got to be made taboo again or theyll keep happening. If we fought with knives for years then suddenly somebody turns up with a gun, you can guarentee nearly everybody who comes to the next fight will have one. Then somebody uses an automatic, everybody wants an automatic then and its anarchy. The more common shooting deaths become the more desensitised people will be and more likely theyll do it themselves. Look at riots. One person smashes a window and next thing windows are getting smashed all over the street. People are lemmings. As long as somebody does it first and sets tbe presedent then everybody will want a piece thinking its fine. Guarentee there will be another nutter does the same in the next week
I agree with @obscuredbeyond on the fact that even if legal access to guns is taken away, the black market and illegal access to guns will always be there. And that will leave truly good citizens unarmed and vulnerable to the criminals.
I also agree with hypocrisy of governments that try to ban guns. I've witnessed revolutions up close. If the people were armed, those bastards would have thought twice before committing those seemingly legitimate but terrible crimes against humanity and human rights.
But doing better on background checks, and establishing better (not firmer) rules to keep guns out of the hands of idiots, irresponsible people, and children and teenagers is a good idea.
And just FYI, some creative criminal commited a massacre by using a pressure cooker. They didn't even need guns. Just a trip to mama's kitchen.
The quote sounds correct, a gun won't kill someone by itself. Though, the way I would put it is: people kill people with the help of guns. Saying guns won't kill kind of sounds like guns aren't dangerous. We all know a gun is an extremely powerful weapon and it can be used as a tool to kill someone in a matter of seconds. People kill people along with guns. If any random person didn't have a gun there wouldn't be as many deaths. Honestly, I think killing someone should be the last thing to come across one's mind.
There wouldn't be as many deaths since guns are such a quick and easy way to kill people**
Did the 9/11 terrorist use guns? Did the Boston Marathon Bombers use guns? Did Timothy Mcveigh in Oklahoma City use guns? Nope. But they were people. We already have gun control and more gun control is simply a waste of time. Want to toughen gun laws, then the current gun laws need to be reinforced and enforced better. We have the NICS Background check system for gun purchases. It fails occasionally and a felon is able to buy a gun. More laws won't fix this. Fixing the background system would. But, we need to fight the people problem not the supposed gun problem. And banning guns would just be "removing the check engine light" without fixing the problem.
Guns don't walk around
Guns don't hate people
Guns aren't discriminating
Guns do not have feelings
Guns do not fire "by themselves"
It's people, that operate them, that do. No mystery.
Where is common sense these days?
🙄 well obviously.
I found this appropriate
www.azquotes.com/.../...y-jeff-cooper-42-97-84.jpg
What? My question?
Oh lol
I agree with the statement, however, with less gun access and more control over who can have one, that will lessen the amount of crazy people that will use them.
So People Control, eh?
What you people folk r saying is that you want, instead of controlling the guns so widely dispersed throughout this country, you want to take the horribly slower path by investimigating every person that gets a gun?
Gun control is evidently needed
It is the person behind the gun that does the shooting. That was a philosophy ylthat I grew up with. Some people do not need a gun, mostly people who are mentally unfit to mess with a gun or criminals.
It also depends on the gun too. There are guns that a citizen does not need to have. Such as machine guns.
I do believe that people can own a gun, but be gun smart.
The quote over simplifies the issue to make it easier to agree with their argument aka a fallacy.
It is true that guns do not shoot by themselves, but i find it hard to believe that the killing in orlando would have had near as many deaths if the guy were to be killing with a knive.
I do not like the quote, but i do agree that people should have the right to bear arms. We should have a more strict sorting system, but still some people would abuse it. That is unavoidable.
What type of fallacy was used
It is both a strawman fallacy because it oversimplifies the opposite point of view to make it easy to counter. No one in the anti-gun side thinks guns kill people without people's intervention. They think people with guns kill more people than people without guns. Therefore, just saying that either guns kill people or people kill people oversimplifies their argument in a more convenient way to counter it.
Also, it is a black and white or either or fallacy. It assumes that either guns kill people or people kill people when there could be many other options. This means that you are giving two optiona and since nobody will say that guns by themselves kill people then the only other option is that people kill people.
As you see, it is a faulty argument.
Guns are a tool that on their own do nothing
True.
Muslim fundamentalists kill people. (Most of the time). And they hate gay people. Except young boys, with whom they have sex.
I don't know what stricter gun control would accomplish considering every single president since Reagan has given free weapons away to terrorist groups with millions of dollars in private bank accounts that operate all over the world. Do you think they're gonna obey gun laws, think again. Paris, a city with strict gun control, had a similar massacre 2 or 3 times.
Really?
Yes, that's why we need to ban people...
I second that notion.
I agree with the quote. The unsettling truth about humanity is that we were a violent, murderous people long before guns came along. Even in places where guns are prohibited, such as prison, people will make weapons out of a toothbrush. -_- If someone truly wants to commit violence against another human being, they will find a way to do it even if only with their bare hands. Take away guns and society will find some other form of evil tool to carry out their disturbed, twisted will.
I agree to some extent, people kill people, but guns give them the means to do so more easily, with a greater number of deaths rapidly. Taking away access to guns, they might still try to harm people, but wouldn't be able to have such a massacre effect with a knife for example.
A gun makes it easier to kill many people in couple minutes. Do you not bring a knife or your fist into a gun battle.
Exactly my point.
Obviously guns don't have minds of their own and go around shooting people, people do it. But in countries like mine where owning a gun is illegal, murder by gun is extremely rare, just saying.
Technically speaking yes I agree, but I also agree that if there were stricter laws and they weren't easy to obtain (and granted, I don't know personally how easy or not they are to obtain) it would help control the situation more, along with people in general and what they think, feel etc.
well it's not like the gun comes to life and starts shooting away
Lmfao
I agree with this quote because there are so many ways a person can get killed without using a gun. People decide to kill people. Or sometimes people get killed through accidents and natural disasters which may or may not be a human's fault.
Why is it always two options?
Like pro life vs pro choice? Or in this case guns vs people?
People use guns to kill other people ( and themselves ). Guns are weapons, they were designed to kill. And if they're given to the wrong people, they will be used in bad ways.
Guns should be treated like swords and not shields.
Black and white fallacy.
Using this qoute as an argument is stupid. Yes, if people want to kill you they could use anything, but the fact is, the most used method is GUNS!!! Guns are easy to get & will do a whole lot of damage with very little effort in very little time.
Sweet Jesus, the thought process of some people is just embarassing.
I was not using it as an argument miss anon. 😑 I was asking if you agree or disagree so please, don't attack me for asking a simple question. Yes or no was all you had to say. 🙄
Get out of your feelings, I wasn't attacking you, it's clear that this is not your stance. Can't handle responses, don't ask questions
yes and no. the act of killing "naturally" is a very intensive, exhausting, gruesome, brutal and dangerous process. with a firearm you press a button... done... no danger for you. this makes all the difference to me.
"The act of killing "naturally" is a very intensive, exhausting, gruesome, brutal and dangerous process." What is a "natural" killing?
"No danger for you." The Orlando shooter was shot and killed by police. Most people would say that constitutes some danger. And most mass shooters are eventually shot and killed by police. However, Islamic extremists and other mass shooters have no hesitation about dying for their cause, so the danger to them is an irrelevant consideration.
@OlderAndWiser beating somebody to death. Or maybe using a knife. You couldn't kill a whole room of people using a knife or your bare hands.
@OlderAndWiser not wrong. tell me how often does that happen and how oftend o mass shootings happen in the US? yeah i thought so...
I didn't say it happened with equal frequency, did I? No. But you said "You couldn't kill a whole room of people using a knife or your bare hands." As I showed, yes, you can, as the video describes happened in Japan, so you were wrong. You CAN kill a whole room of people using a knife.
@OlderAndWiser i said that it is harder, if you had read my whole opinion and not just the last thing i posted. your video however doesn´t show how it´s a good idea to keep everybody being legally allowed to buy a gun, cause if that wasn´t the case, then clearly less gun related murders would occur.
I quoted you verbatim. "You couldn't kill a whole room of people using a knife or your bare hands." That is what you said. You should take responsibility for your own words.
I never suggested that the video justifies anything about guns. It merely proves that someone armed with only a knife can kill a room full of people, which you said could not be done.
@OlderAndWiser well i don´t care. this is not the topic of this question.
TRUTH. Blaming an inanimate object for someone's death is absurd.
Nonsense:
Guns kill people (because it was the gun)
Spoons kill people (because they choke on it)
Bathtubs kill people (because they slipped and bashed their heads in it).
etc. etc.
Because people do it, obviously.
Guns are designed make killing so much easier and thus more people kill.
People are the sole reason. Anything could be used Miss. Even a chainsaw from Home Depot would obviously make lethal weapons.
True. But it is much harder to cause a mass killing.
I agree with it. Guns are falling into the wrong hands way too often.
There are lots of countries with strict/no gun laws that still have a violence problem. There are countries with no loose gun laws that have issues. Look at Isreal, strict laws and still violence.
The bigger issues are wages not growing but costs are rising which leads to lots of problems including the weakening of families.
Also, we have lots of mentally unstable people in USA who go unchecked since Ronald Reagan de-funded lots of mental hospitals.
I agree with this completely. A gun is a tool, depends on how the tool is used.
Muslim walks into a bar and orders shots for everyone.
Would you prefer he had made a suicide vest and exploded in the middle of the floor instead? The death toll would have been much higher, plus many people that would have survived either way now have to live with an amputated leg or arm.
People kill people but guns make it a lot easier they give a certain detachment from the act that make it a lot easier
People kill people with guns, and guns make it easy to kill a lot of people very quickly.
People kill people but we can't ban people thus we should ban guns.
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions