It's like setting up a fake car store, showing people some nice and shiny cars, then saying "yeah, yeah, this Volvo is really good and reliable.... this one right here was used by young Dennis, 11 years old, to drive over five kindergarteners when he stole it from his dad for a test drive..." and then people walking out of the store going all "wow I totes changed my mind about buying a car, so convince."
If real people do this, they have to be either really dumb or the most dissonant people in the world. How can you simultaneously want to buy a gun, and be repulsed at the mere mention of things you already know about guns?
If real people do this, they have to be either really dumb or the most dissonant people in the world. How can you simultaneously want to buy a gun, and be repulsed at the mere mention of things you already know about guns?Appeal to emotion works.
BUT they got one point, and that is that these people walking in there clearly having no clue of weapons and looking like they would rather shit themselves than shooting someone in cold blood really think they could protect themselves or anybody by carrying a gun. Crazy.
Wouldn't be suprised if the customers were all actors too. The entire thing is staged
Martial Arts as an alternative to firearms?
Like.. in the US?
That's one way of quickly getting shot to pieces.
In yurop it can work, until you piss off the cops or mafia :lol:
It's like setting up a fake car store, showing people some nice and shiny cars, then saying "yeah, yeah, this Volvo is really good and reliable.... this one right here was used by young Dennis, 11 years old, to drive over five kindergarteners when he stole it from his dad for a test drive..." and then people walking out of the store going all "wow I totes changed my mind about buying a car, so convince."
Apples and oranges. Cars are for transportation, guns are for killing. A car can be used to kill yes, but pretty sure the person that conceived the car did not do so for the purpose of killing people. Guns on the other hand were, and still are, designed to kill. I get the comparison you're trying to make in regards to the video itself, but people who are for guns that use the cars and guns comparison are fucking stupid.It isn't apples and oranges in regards to this video. It can be apples and oranges if you make the analogy in a normal conversation about whether guns should be made illegal or not; it's not apples and oranges in the context of this video.
The video is somewhat funny. Some of the reaction that people have is pretty hilarious. They were totally up for buying a device for killing yet completely recoiled when they heard it was used for that purpose (accidentally notwithstanding).
Meant to quote antiblitz as well but I can't forum.
Apples and oranges. Cars are for transportation, guns are for killing. A car can be used to kill yes, but pretty sure the person that conceived the car did not do so for the purpose of killing people. Guns on the other hand were, and still are, designed to kill. I get the comparison you're trying to make in regards to the video itself, but people who are for guns that use the cars and guns comparison are fucking stupid.
It isn't apples and oranges in regards to this video. It can be apples and oranges if you make the analogy in a normal conversation about whether guns should be made illegal or not; it's not apples and oranges in the context of this video.
Even then, I don't completely buy the apples and oranges thing because if someone buys guns for shooting at targets because it's fun, and someone steals it and kills with it... there's not much difference to someone getting his car stolen and someone driving people over with it.
Similarly if you buy it to protect yourself against rape, and a three year old accidentally shoots someone with it, it was used in a way and for a purpose it wasn't meant for. A car can be used as a weapon too.
That argument only works if you suppose a gun is useless or near useless. In Western European cities, guns are next to useless, even for self-defense. Out in the middle of the Mid-West, guns are actually kind of useful, like cars. Some city centers have been banning cars for the last few years because cars are not necessary if you have proper public transport, so the comparison isn't as strange as you might think.
Actually, shooting someone with a gun is exactly how the gun is meant to be used. Whether or not it was accidental or not is moot - a gun is designed to shoot projectiles in order to kill. A car is designed to transport people and goods.That's nothing but semantics, and semantics don't carry any power in the real world. Guns are made for shooting. That's it. You can do many things with shooting. You can shoot cardboard, you can shoot animals, you can shoot criminals to wound them, you can shoot enemies to kill them, you can shoot the air to make a celebratory noise while shouting "Allah Akbar" and so on. If someone buys a gun to shoot at cardboard and someone steals it to kill with it that is exactly the same thing as if someone buys a car to drive it in circles and someone steals it to "transport" someone's blood and bits of flesh around after driving over them.
Like I said, what you've said is valid for the purpose of this obnoxious video. Furthermore, I support responsible people getting guns. I just unapologetically disagree with the notion that owning a gun is a right. It is a privilege, much like driving a car.
That's nothing but semantics, and semantics don't carry any power in the real world. Guns are made for shooting. That's it. You can do many things with shooting. You can shoot cardboard, you can shoot animals, you can shoot criminals to wound them, you can shoot enemies to kill them, you can shoot the air to make a celebratory noise while shouting "Allah Akbar" and so on. If someone buys a gun to shoot at cardboard and someone steals it to kill with it that is exactly the same thing as if someone buys a car to drive it in circles and someone steals it to "transport" someone's blood and bits of flesh around after driving over them.
It's not semantics at all. I can't think of any gun that was designed for anything but to maim and kill, from the lowliest calibre to .50. The things you listed are other applications, but doesn't change the fact that a firearm is designed to main and kill. If you don't think what the original purpose of something matters in terms of regulation and laws that's fine, but to think that a gun isn't designed to kill is the very definition of playing semantics that you accuse me of.Tell me why it matters what they are "designed for."
Also all of those people going to buy guns... all their fingers are on the triggers. It's no wonder so many accidents happen with firearms if that's the basic instinct.
And yeah, guns are a fucking awful rape prevention tool. Good luck getting it out of your handbag and using it when there's a 300% times heavier and stronger guy on top of you. Even if you get it out, you're just going to lose it. Anything is better. Pepper spray, a knife (a LOT harder to take away from someone panicky...), scratching/screaming...
No reason for people to own guns.
Hunting, self-defense, sport, collection....
Yeah, you might be fine, cool headed and responsible today, but tomorrow or 10 years ahead, or when u get old and senile something clicks in your brain that makes you kill off your family, yourself or whoever. It's just too easy to do massive damage with a gun.
if your assuming that you and any other person around you is gonna snap and go violently insane at any moment, you might want to get your head checked
The analogy with cars meh. Much harder to kill a target with a car than with a gun. Besides they are not excluding each other. The gun comes on top of the potential of the car. Why not allow people to carry bombs and grenades? They can also be fun!
But if I lived somewhere where everyone had a gun, every nutjob had one, with triggerhappy cops (cuz many guns around), and a generally paranoid environment, I would probably get one myself..
A armed society is a polite society, you know the most polite, least confrontational people out there? CCers. they dont want there to be ANY excuse for them to have their firearm taken, to get involved with the police, etc...So they arent gonna get into a barfight or heated argument with that douchebag who wants to fight.
A few triggerhappy cops, compared to the majoritiy of cops being decent, good folk
It's not hypocrisy, it's a nasty catch22, a consequence of environment (like in a warzone..), and why (in some parts of america) they should start making it really hard to own a gun. You should have to pass state tests, mental tests, and do so regularly for the rest of your life if you want to keep it.
tests and checks, tests and checks....no amount of mental checks or background checks will make a difference
Blitz, wouldn't it be nice to have non-triggerhappy cops, criminals who see guns as a liability, generally a more at-ease environment? It has to start somewhere..
yea i would love more cops who are great at their job. criminals woouldnt care, theyll see it as another tool to bully the unarmed, good citizens with.
you know, things are actually really calm here, nice and peaceful
(fyi I've been in army and shot the G3 and mp5, that's about the limit of my gun-experience, sure it's fun, but cmon. Not that much fun after a few hundred rounds..)
Yea dude, i played cRPG, thats about my limit of video games, sure its fun. but cmon. not that much fun after the first hour or two
It's not semantics at all. I can't think of any gun that was designed for anything but to maim and kill, from the lowliest calibre to .50. The things you listed are other applications, but doesn't change the fact that a firearm is designed to main and kill. If you don't think what the original purpose of something matters in terms of regulation and laws that's fine, but to think that a gun isn't designed to kill is the very definition of playing semantics that you accuse me of.
if your assuming that you and any other person around you is gonna snap and go violently insane at any moment, you might want to get your head checked.
(click to show/hide)
Statistically, people go crazy all the time. And that might just affect you in a bad way. The chance of it happening is much bigger cause everyone have a gun or can get one in 5 minutes.
Just so you understand, from a European perspective, the pro gun arguments from the US seems pretty much idiotic and near absurd. Sure you can have guns here too, if you really want, but people feel no need to have one for protection. Because criminals almost exclusively use guns against each other, and on extremely rare occasions like bright day bank robberies, against cops.
In the US people have guns because people have guns . In the EU, we don't have have guns for self defence, because no one uses guns against each other. (and the criminals only target each other.)
apples or not, the analogy is still limping (german saying, dunno how to translate). The guys in the video (ignoring retardness of the video) go to the shop to buy a gun with the goal of more security/safe life, then learn that the guns in the shop actually lead to the opposite. In your example people go buy a car to drive it, then learn that the car was misused to kill people.They didn't learn the gun was the opposite, they were led to believe that by appeal to emotion. They think that it's too unsafe to own a gun in the end. In my example people go buy a car for a reason and then think it's too unsafe.
Anyway, the analogy suffices to show that the video is crap, no need to argue the next 10 sides of this thread over tiny inconsistencies.
No, it's not. That's one reason BJJ is recommended to women concerned about safety. I don't have to watch videos about pepper spray, I know how it works. There are different kinds. You spray it in a S pattern to make sure it hits generally. Don't even get me started on the idea that to use a knife you need to be a "ninja."
Secondly, by the time someone is on top of you, the time to pull whatever weapon out or perform whatever martial art ninja move is long gone.....a self defense weapon is designed to be drawn BEFORE that happens. And a gun compared to pepper spray? have you not seen videos of people shrugging off pepper spray, not to mention goodluck trying to use the thing when it requires a direct shot to the eyes, is affected by the slightest breeze and only has a range of 5 feet. dont even get me started on the idea of giving a untrained person a knife to try and ninja fight their way out of a mess
I knew I shouldn't get involved in a gun debate.Yes, what things are designed for makes no difference in its regulation. If you take an apple and "design" it to kill people, it wouldn't be illegal. Your nuclear bomb thing is just a slippery slope fallacy.
Anyway, yes the analogy works for the video like I originally said. I also said the analogy makes no sense in terms of the overall gun control debate. If what things are designed for makes no difference in its regulation then fuck it I want a nuclear bomb as a lawn ornament. Sure, it can be used to unleash destruction in a wide radius, but it also looks really nice sitting on my lawn.
Since I'm getting drawn back into this unholy quagmire where literally no one's opinion's will be changed, I'm gonna do something constructive like visit theUkraine,wiping your ass standing or sitting, Facopalypse thread.
Only legal place for firearms in my opinion is in lawenforcemnt, professional hunt and war.The problem is that criminals don't care about legality.
Assume two cities, both with trustworthy and reasonable equipped police-force.
Only difference of the two cities is: one city allows people to carry firearms and other lethal weapons with nearly no control. You must assume that everyone you meet potentially could be armed and therefore one must consider to get armed as well
The other city has strict controls on ownership and transactions with firearms and other lethal weapons. You can assume that people on the street are not armed - and if you meet someone who is armed it is only natural to be deeply alarmed an run for cover and call for help.
I would still prefer the city with strict controls on weapons. I dont want to get armed myslef.
And for those who still hang to the argument that also a car can be used to damage and hurt others: firearms do this job a lot easier and effective. Point and pull the trigger. Its really not much of an effort to bring pain and death - even accidentally.
I appreciate the spirit of the original video. Only legal place for firearms in my opinion is in lawenforcemnt, professional hunt and war.
I still would prefer that ownership of weapon is a criminal act on itself (with exception of lawenforcemnt, professional hunt and military).the ownership isnt the problem, plenty of people own them, its carrying them on your person while about the town thats is the issue, i could care less if you owned a bazooka, as long as you werent carrying the bazooka in your pants while i worked. This in turn is up to the state, but most states have laws in place about the possession of the weapon on your person without licensing, though like i said before, it doesnt really matter, as its more so just a hindrance to law abiding civilians while the criminal carries it anyways.
Your nuclear bomb thing is just a slippery slope fallacy.
...i could care less if you owned a bazooka...
It's not even that, it's just wrong. What something is "designed for" does not matter, only what it actually is does matter.It is also that (SSF), but it's a lot of other things as well. And yes, indeed.
Also, there have been states that were super strict about gun ownership and had high crime, then when they loosened up the gun laws crime went down a lot, as did murders.
I think it's obvious that there's no "one size fits all" here, and I'm ready to put my money on some significant demographic differences between pros and antis gun regulation.I think the demographic of the area is the most important thing here. Loose guns laws in a state with tons of ghettos and derelict cities = predictable results. State that consists of upper class whites in their nightmarishly well-maintained and boring neighborhoods and no gun control = predictable results.
It's not even that, it's just wrong. What something is "designed for" does not matter, only what it actually is does matter.
Maybe I used the wrong word. Replace designed for with engineered to do. To me, what a product is engineered/designed to do defines what it is.For you, maybe, but that's just objectively wrong. Sometimes the two are the same, but far from always.
Maybe I used the wrong word. Replace designed for with engineered to do. To me, what a product is engineered/designed to do defines what it is.
No Xant if anything it's subjective to suggest a gun is anything but a gun. To me a gun is a gun because it is declared by the manufacturer as such. It is classified by laws and regulations as a gun. It will never be a book end or a toothbrush even if you use it like one. The fact that to someone else it might be something else is entirely subjective. But I'm seriously not going to argue about philosophical nonsense about what something is and isn't. It so far removed from practicality that it's a complete waste of time.Who was suggesting a gun isn't a gun? What? How does that even make sense? A gun is, by definition, a gun. I have no idea what you're going on about.
but you cannot deny that one is functionally designed to be good at a certain task that the other is not designed to be good at.
No Xant if anything it's subjective to suggest a gun is anything but a gun.
To me a gun is a gun because it is declared by the manufacturer as such. It is classified by laws and regulations as a gun.
It will never be a book end or a toothbrush even if you use it like one.
The fact that to someone else it might be something else is entirely subjective. But I'm seriously not going to argue about philosophical nonsense about what something is and isn't. It so far removed from practicality that it's a complete waste of time.
Society itself is built around the implicit threat of violence. If you can't see a gun as a tool with a very clear purpose in that situation, you're just not looking at a big enough picture.
Name one thing that is not designed to kill that kills easier than squeezing a trigger.
It's far from useless, it's our weapon of choice for large-scale violence or street violence. As a tool it's very good at performing it's primary function.
That's exactly what we've been talking about. Why do you differentiate between hunting rifles and sniper rifles/silencers? Because they are designed for totally different things.
Not be be a massive jerk, but here's where you seem to be contradicting yourself as your other posts say it doesn't matter what it's designed for but now you're saying that certain types of weapon are hard to justify? Because they are made for different scenarios, explicitly for killing humans. Yes we attach meaning to objects ourselves, but you cant deny the functional difference between ones that are primarily good at killing humans and those that aren't, your last post shows that you're aware of the difference at least.
No Xant if anything it's subjective to suggest a gun is anything but a gun. To me a gun is a gun because it is declared by the manufacturer as such. It is classified by laws and regulations as a gun. It will never be a book end or a toothbrush even if you use it like one. The fact that to someone else it might be something else is entirely subjective. But I'm seriously not going to argue about philosophical nonsense about what something is and isn't. It so far removed from practicality that it's a complete waste of time.
There's an oft misatributed quote to Orwell that goes:
It's our weapon of choice for other, more reasonable things.
There's an oft misatributed quote to Orwell that goes:
"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us."
It may be misattributed, but the sentiment isn't.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations
-Actual source: Quote Investigator found the earliest known appearance in a 1993 Washington Times essay by Richard Grenier: "As George Orwell pointed out, people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." The absence of quotation marks indicates that Grenier was using his own words to convey his interpretation of Orwell's opinion, as seen in citations below.
-Orwell wrote that pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious."
-In an essay on Rudyard Kipling, Orwell cited Kipling's phrase "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep" (Kipling, Tommy), and further noted that Kipling's "grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can be highly civilized only while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them."
Private property is the foundation of "civilization", such as it is. It has always been guaranteed, ultimately, by the threat of violence. Whatever high minded social contracts we've superimposed over this base fact aren't weightless by any means, but they only overlay this blunt and brutal truth, the silk glove covering the iron fist.
Because they are actually different and perform differently? Unlike cars and guns?
And i think we're fundamentally talking about different definitions of the word 'design'. I'm talking about the object as a functional tool, and that's what my usage of the term 'design' means.
A car has many functional uses, misuse can result in death in the hands of the truly incompetent or extremely unfortunate. An automatic weapon has the functional use of killing humans well, unlike a car you can kill people in buildings, you can even use it to massacre a school if you felt like it. You could argue that it has another purpose and that it functions as a deterrent to other gun-wielders (but it's only a deterrent because it's good at killing, you can't deny its primary attribute because it's not good at anything else, you'd be daft to go hunting with one). When a gun is used to kill someone it's not a result of a person misusing the tool they've been given like it is with a car, the gun is actually being used for the purpose it was made for; firing little bits of metal at another human to kill them.
Equally to your silencer example i cant imagine a scenario in my country in which a law-abiding person would need an automatic weapon, maybe cos it's not the wild west out here.
Yes, compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
That's the Brits since 1900.
Yes, compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
That's the Brits since 1900.
Peter James Wringe PC 23 Essex Police 4 July 1982 Fell through roof while searching a premises