This organization against guns opened a gun store in NYC to make a point.

[Christo]

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 

[AntiBlitz]

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 

i meant it as in a person is afraid of "rape" or some crap, so they drive to the store and say "i dont want to be raped, i need a gun", naturally the store owner sells her the best "anti-rape firearm" possible and she leaves, armed, no knowledge.  Now her rape story comes to fruition, she is armed, she thinks she knows what to do, but instead she shot some bystander, or it was her husband coming home early from work, or the gun is taken from her.  Now she is a news story, and a statistic, when she could have been someone armed with the knowledge to use it, or given an alternative means to defend herself that gave her the confidence to not use the firearm right away. 

A little farfetched to believe every person in the U.S is constantly packing some heat though christo lol, im sure the stereotype sounds nice, but its far from true.  Being armed with the knowledge to defend yourself would go a long way and as far as im concerned should be the only way you should even be given the right to use your 2nd amendment rights.

Some states are super strict on the possession of firearms, requiring licenses to carry that can be near impossible to get in some states, cough cough, Maryland my state, and as liberal as can be, cough cough, Pennsylvania, to my north who give a license to every tom, dick, and harry who asks for one.

[Christo]

Yeah I get it, still it is way more risky to fight back even the simplest thug in the US than in Europe for that reason.

It's fun to picture all of you as some gung-ho motherfuckers, no offense meant or anything 

You guys should send people to a firing range, instead of selling them guns immediately.

"but muh 2nd amendment"

Well, yeah. But learning how to use those things is not a bad idea.

[Xant]

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...

[Bronto]

Christo, I grew up in the middle of nowhere USA. If you grow up in redneck surroundings chances are you learn how to shoot at a very young age. First time I shot a gun was like 7 or 8 years old. Reason being groundhogs are bad for farming, plowing, using a tractor in general. Also, there are a plethora of animals that will invade your barn and you've got to be ready to shoot those motherfuckers so they don't ruin your feed or your hay. Plus, shooting deer, turkey, anything you can eat, is a major help if you're a poor farmer.

Sadly though, it's mostly the people in cities of America that buy hand guns and think they're 50 cent bout to light a block up with their gloc. If you buy a gun legally there is supposed to be a "thorough" background check conducted on you but it's not thorough enough as evidenced by the problems we, in America, have in regards to gun violence. I mean shit, where I live in Pennsylvania, I could probably go on my lunch break and come back with a new weapon because I have a clean record.

Antiblitz is right about the concealed weapons permits too. I live in Pennsylvania and it's really easy to get a concealed permit and a lot of people have them. Most of them are idiots and it's a scary thing. You basically go to your local magistrate fill out some forms, snap a pic, pay a fee and boom you're now licensed to carry. This is where the problems arise. There has to be a better, more efficient way of gun procurement but every time something is suggested it gets shot down....HEYYYYOOO....pun fully intended. 

[Swaggart]

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.

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.

[Xant]

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.

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.

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.

[Kafein]

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.

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.

[Bronto]

Ban our sentient gun carrying vehicular overlords.

[Swaggart]

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.

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.

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.

[Swaggart]

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.

I don't think a gun is useless or near useless at all. In fact I think the exact opposite. They are very effective at what they're designed to do.

[Xant]

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.

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.

[Swaggart]

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.

[Thomek]

No reason for people to own guns.

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.

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..

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.

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..

(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..)

[Xant]

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."