This remind you of anybody?

Dark Dolphin · Post by **Dark Dolphin** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:59 pm

Guns kill people much more easily than swords. There's a reason they're used over the latter, you know.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:59 pm

I'm just saying that the physics leg of above argument wasn't as strong as the other two.

Well it's the leg that got me interested in guns. So I beg to differ.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:02 pm

Guns kill people much more easily than swords. There's a reason they're used over the latter, you know.[/img]

I'm afraid not buddy. A piercing slash with a sword will do much more damage then a standard caliber rifle or pistol ever could. Aside from the range advantage, guns are much less lethal then bladed weapons.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:16 pm

I'm afraid not buddy. A piercing slash with a sword will do much more damage then a standard caliber rifle or pistol ever could. Aside from the range advantage, guns are much less lethal then bladed weapons.

There's also the concealment issue. It's much easier to carry a handgun with you and not be noticed. It's a hellova lot harder to lug around a broadsword or a katana and not have people realize you're carrying a weapon.

And again - it's easier to run away from someone with a sword than with a gun. If you're fast enough, you're safe. But if someone's packing heat, running won't do you any good.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:21 pm

Oh I understand that they are infinitly more useful in killing people. But it's not because they are so powerful but so compact and have range. And even something like a combat knife would be more lethal then a standard infantry assault rifle (in terms of damage potential). And I don't think knives are that hard to conceil.

Dark Dolphin · Post by **Dark Dolphin** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:23 pm

Not many people are trained to use swords. Guns are quite a bit more dangerous because even untrained people can use them to some effect.

This is just my opinion, but I'd be more worried about a guy with a gun chasing me than a guy with a sword. The range issue is more important than other aspects. Yes, a gun may make a smaller hole than a sword does, but once your hit with a bullet you'll probably be fairly incapacitated to a certain degree(depending on where you're hit). At that point the gunner can easily easily kill you with his guin or otherwise. A sword...someone's going to have to be pretty close to you.

Is anyone here more worried about being killed by a sword than a gun?

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:26 pm

Again, I'm not saying I would rather someone come at me with a gun then a sword. All I'm saying is that unless the guy is packing a shotgun, you have a very good chance of surviving a gunshot.

The "assault weapons" (a term that doesn't really mean anything but the media and the left thinks it does) that the government is so eager to ban are designed to incapacitate, not kill because a wounded soldier utilizes more resources from an enemy army then a dead soldier does. Well. They do generally die of their wounds eventually. But still.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:06 am

This argument is retarded.

People didn't have guns a few hundred years ago, and that didn't stop them from killing themselves and each other. They had other weapons back then that did the job perfectly well.

People have guns now because we invented them and now guns are the current weapon of choice.

Anti-gun activists and arguments are retarded. Taking away guns from people won't reduce killing in the least. If someone is out to kill, they can do so in any of hundreds of ways. I hate sounding like a PSA, but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. Guns are tools, and can be used or abused.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:59 am

Also, people think it's simple to just pick up a gun and "bust a cap".

Actually trying to hit a moving target with a 9mm-wide projectile at even several dozen feet with a little handheld object isn't quite that easy.

And yes, people can kill each other even if NO weapons existed... so stop the argument. Hm, I'm late for class now.

Post by **Esrever** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:52 am

People feel better when they can attribute the ridiculously high rate of death-by-shooting in the US to the overabundance of guns. It's probably much more comforting than just thinking your country is full of random murderous psychos.

That said, I think you're the one with the sketchy argument, Segaholic. (Sorry!) Most murders are not pre-meditated, and most murderers are not "out to kill." It is something that happens in the heat of the moment, when someone is so emotional that they lose their heads for a second. The only real "problem" with everyone having a gun is that it gives them the power to kill while being a huge wuss. Guns make it too easy -- you only have to point and shoot, it only takes a split-second and you don't even have to touch the person or get your hair mussed.

So Joe comes home and catches his wife in bed with another man. Well in that situation, handing Joe a pistol isn't exactly the same thing as handing him a knife or a crossbow. Especially if the other man is a burly dude!

Post by **Segaholic2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:07 pm

Well, let's look at it this way:

Making guns illegal would just make gun deaths escalate. If guns were illegal, then the only people that would have them would be criminals in the first place, and everyone else would be "defenseless". Arguing for the complete banning of guns is one of the worst things you can do.

Katherine cites Taiwan: Guns are illegal. Every single mafia member has a gun and has access to guns, while everyone else is dicked.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:07 pm

The situation you brought up Esrever isn't murder. At least in Texas.

As for your crossbow or knife argument, I beg to differ. A knife wound (depending on the knive) can be much more lethal then that of a handgun. And if the guy is big, it's going to take more punch with a gun to take him down just like it would with knife or bow.

A particular story comes to mind during WWII when a Japanese pilot had crashed on some island of Hawaii. A rather large Hawaiin confronted him and though the Japanese guy fired several shots at the guy, the Hawaiin managed to cross the distance between himself and the Jap and kill him with his bare hands. Guns are not the magic death rays you see in movies.

And a crossbow has all the advantages of a gun except it's much quieter. Great promotion there. The projectile also has more mass, is a greater diameter and since most people don't walk around wearing body armor anyway it's going to have no penetration issues. I would say a crossbow is just as lethal if not moreso then your standard 9mm or .38 Special.

As for your argument it is still bankrupt. Yes a gun ALLOWS a person to act on heat of the moment stupidity and emotion, but the person is responsible for acting on it. Not the gun. Just because I CAN punch someone and perhaps want to doesn't mean I do. That's what makes us civilized and not animals. If someone shoots someone with a gun because they "loose control" then it is their own damn fault. Not the gun's. Guns don't cause deaths anymore then a pencil causes spelling mistakes. They are just the lense through which human stupidity is revealed. Hate the idiot, love the gun.

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:11 pm

Not many people are trained to use swords.

Which makes me all the more wanting to finish and master Kumdo sometime during my life.

Is anyone here more worried about being killed by a sword than a gun?

No, I'm more worried about the gun. At this time, more people use it. If was to run away from a guy with a sword, I'd have much chance then a dude with a gun who could just easily shot me as I run.
~Neo

Dark Dolphin · Post by **Dark Dolphin** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:19 pm

I agree this argumentis going nowhere fast, but its largely because people haven't answered my question except for Neo Yi. Chris, if you can honestly say that, if a guy with intent to kill was after you with a sword you'd be more afraid/have a higher probability of death than if said guy had a gun, then you'll prove, at least to yourself, that swords are a greater threat. You'll also prove to many here that you probably have a flawed sense of danger.

Edit: Segaholic, I'm not arguing guns be made illegal, I'm olny arguing for which weapon is more dangerous.

Also, to those bringing up the argument that a gun after a few dozen feet in range greatly decreases in deadliness, you're not proving anything. A gun at that range is still much more deadly than a sword. Duh.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:27 pm

You guys are just more scared of the guy with the gun because that threat is much more "realistic" and probable than a guy running around with a sword... Even though if he were able to catch up with you until you got tired from running, a sword would be much more lethal than a gun.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:31 pm

chriscaffee wrote:Again, I'm not saying I would rather someone come at me with a gun then a sword. All I'm saying is that unless the guy is packing a shotgun, you have a very good chance of surviving a gunshot.

The fact of the matter is that a wound caused with a sword or other large bladed weapon is generally more lethal then a wound caused from a single gunshot from a handgun or even a varmint/assault rifle. I never said that guns weren't more popular that they weren't more efficient at killing or any such thing. All I said was that until you get into the larger rifles and shotguns the wounds from a bladed weapon are generally more lethal. Some specialized knives have been known to remove limbs or even decapitate. Please tell me you don't think a .223 hole in your body is the same thing. And no the SS109 does not always tumble, it is designed to do that most of the time.

Dark Dolphin · Post by **Dark Dolphin** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:01 pm

Segaholic, I put up a specific situation where both were equally possible. And if guns and swords were equally used, I'd still be more afraid of guns. A guy with a sword running after you is going to tire more quickly than one with a handgun anyway. I think the running scenario is being taken to far by some.

I agree, Chris. A sword do more damage, generally, than a gun(with the possible exception you noted). More damage is relative, however. A sword lopping off an arm isn't as big a deal as a .223 hole in a head. Still, if a a bullet isn't a lethal one the attacker does use more, so talking about the size of an individual hole/cut isn't relevant in terms of damage until a gun runs out of ammo(which, after even a minumum of six bullet holes, the target is very likely to die).

Doing more damage doesn't necessarily make it a more dangerous weapon, however. If they were, we'd be invading Iraq with knives and swords rather than rifles.

Chris and I are making different arguments, one about the size of the wound versus the overall danger posed by the weapon, so this argument isn't even against the right sides.

Post by **Esrever** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:27 pm

chriscaffee wrote:Yes a gun ALLOWS a person to act on heat of the moment stupidity and emotion, but the person is responsible for acting on it. Not the gun. Just because I CAN punch someone and perhaps want to doesn't mean I do. That's what makes us civilized and not animals. If someone shoots someone with a gun because they "loose control" then it is their own damn fault. Not the gun's. Guns don't cause deaths anymore then a pencil causes spelling mistakes. They are just the lense through which human stupidity is revealed. Hate the idiot, love the gun.

That was my original point. People like to blame your ridiculously high rate of violent crime on unusually widespread gun ownership because the second most ready explanation is unusually widespread idiocy. You can see why people might prefer the first explanation, even if it isn't the more accurate one.

Can we stop harping endlessly about swords for a moment? Look, I didn't say you should ban guns, and I didn't say it was the gun's fault. I don't care if guns are banned or not. The only people I have to worry about shooting me are criminals and they are going to have guns either way. So go ahead, have a gun in your house. What the hell, get a bloody assault rifle, or a bazooka. Go nuts.

But I just think it's funny that there are so many people lying in bed at night, feeling safer because they've got a pistol in their dresser. To defend themselves! And I am sure there are many probable situations in which it would be useful, other than accidently shooting a family member. Like when some crazy bastard with a gun breaks into your home at night, and when you wake up with a pistol in your face you can quickly grab YOUR gun and use it to shoot his bullets out of the air before they hit you. Or maybe he doesn't get the drop on you, because he called in advance to let you know he was coming. That way, you can wait for him by the window. WITH YOUR GUN.

Keeping your family safe is important, but this gun thing goes way, waaay beyond that and into some kind of crazed national obsession. I wonder how many of you "safety" heads also have a fire sprinkler system or an earthquake kit in your homes. The absolute silliness of it all is immediately apparent to practically everyone on the outside looking in. I would never have thought to buy a gun for myself for "protection," and despite what you might susepct, I could get one here (legally) if I wanted one.

Adam Adamant · Post by **Adam Adamant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:37 pm

Why do we need guns anyway? The main arguments seem to be:

a) Because it's fun as a hobby. But surely, if we can see a good improvement from less guns, ie less gun crime, then this is not a big sacrifice to make. I mean you could still use air guns, and as an analogy, heroin is probably great fun, but it's illegal because of the abuse it is open to.

b) We need them for self defense. Well from who, other people with guns? And it is true that gangsters would probably still be able to get them. But it makes it harder for them to do so. It prevents every two bit criminal carrying one. In the UK, where guns are illegal in the most part, gun crime is quite rare. I don't know anyone who has been threatened with a gun, nor have I ever heard of it happening locally. Sure it happens but so do suicides and car accidents, some things are unavoidable. If only professional criminals and such have guns it's unlikely you'd be threatened with one unless you were causing trouble with said criminal. Sure there will be situations where you could be faced with a gun weilding menace, but they are unlikely to knock at your door, so unless you want to carry your gun round with you what is the point.

Well I mean, that's my thought anyway.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:58 pm

I assume when you say you can get gun "here" that you live in England. And know doubt you can as long as it is a manually operated weapon.

And guns as protection do work. Making up ludicrous circumstances doesn't mean they don't. During a car jacking in Miami, the owner of the car was thrown into the trunk. Where he happened to have some guns. When the would-be thief opened up the trunk he was turned into swiss cheese. All your other scenarios are bullshit as well because your common crook isn't a God damn ninja. And self-defense with a carry permit extends to far beyond the home.

And as for reducing gun crime, that is asinine. The goal is not to reduce a particular manner in which crimes are comitted, but to reduce crime. Guns don't create crime as we've already established. Getting rid of firearms does nothing but keep the criminals armed. Also, why is it that you call the police? You call the police because they have guns. That's why. They enforce the law using guns. Of course, police can kill people with guns too. Innocent people. Better confiscate those as well. And what makes a cop so much more qualified to have a firearm then a civilian? Crooked cops exist just as much as crooked civilians.

As for entertainment, video games waste time and do absolutly nothing postive for you. Though in the future it could be used as a great medium for story telling or art, it is now used to kill aliens and demons or race cars. No useful purpose and it facilitates anti-social and violent behavior. It doesn't cause it, just like guns don't cause deaths, but it does make it easier.

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:06 pm

I should also take this time to say even if I said I have more chance for a gun to kill then a sword, I have absolutely NOTHING against guns. Especially since my father owns a couple and both my parents are active members in the Korean Gun Club (I might join when I'm older, but most of them are old middle age koreans who only speak korean, a language I'm still struggling with...it shames me).
~Neo

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:12 pm

Adam Adamant wrote:In the UK, where guns are illegal in the most part, gun crime is quite rare.

...*snort*

Adam Adamant wrote:I don't know anyone who has been threatened with a gun, nor have I ever heard of it happening locally.

I live in the US, and neither have I.

People blaming guns for gun crime are completely missing the point. Even if there were some way to make all guns in existence disintegrate and that no more guns were ever made again, we'd still have crime. Period. So perhaps we should, you know, look into the underlying causes of crime itself? You know, the social climate and-- oh, wait, no one cares. Nevermind. Where was I? Oh yes. GUNSGUNSGUNSGUNSGUNSGUNS

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:14 pm

As for entertainment, video games waste time and do absolutly nothing postive for you. Though in the future it could be used as a great medium for story telling or art, it is now used to kill aliens and demons or race cars. No useful purpose and it facilitates anti-social and violent behavior. It doesn't cause it, just like guns don't cause deaths, but it does make it easier.

I so knew you were going to use this argument. Luckily, it's not hard to argue against.

Videogames may be a hobby that's a waste of time, but if I get angry I can't pick up my GameCube and blow a hole in my neighbor's head from 15 feet away.

Guns are not tools. They are WEAPONS. You can choose to shoot at things that are not living with them, but that is not their intended purpose. Tools may be turned into a weapon, but a gun is a weapon that can't be used as a tool. Unless you're naive enough to think that people buy guns and then use them as expensive, loaded hammers.

Getting rid of firearms does nothing but keep the criminals armed.

If you take away all the legitimate means of purchasing a weapon, there's only illegal means. What does this mean? Well, for one - Joe Somebody can't just decide on a whim to walk out of K-Mart one day and start filling people of lead. It limits the distribution of guns, to an extent. And the only people who have guns will be those who know of a way to get them illegally and are willing to go through the trouble and danger of getting one.

That's a smaller percentage than you may think.

It does mean that criminals will still posess guns. But it also means that average Joe will think twice about comitting a gun crime because of all of the hassle involved in getting one.

Also, why is it that you call the police? You call the police because they have guns. That's why.

And because they have training. And usually other tools, such as bullet-proof vests. And they can call for backup, which means that they're greater in numbers than the single criminal.

And what makes a cop so much more qualified to have a firearm then a civilian?

They're required to know how to use them, for one.

Crooked cops exist just as much as crooked civilians

By that logic, we shouldn't trust any police anytime because there's always the chance that they'll be crooked.

People blaming guns for gun crime are completely missing the point. Even if there were some way to make all guns in existence disintegrate and that no more guns were ever made again, we'd still have crime. Period. So perhaps we should, you know, look into the underlying causes of crime itself? You know, the social climate and-- oh, wait, no one cares. Nevermind. Where was I? Oh yes. GUNSGUNSGUNSGUNSGUNSGUNS

Yes, there would still be crime. But I think it would decrease the different kinds of crime and make it a bit more managable. There are many crimes that would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish without the help of a gun.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:25 pm

Beware the angry caps lock of doom.

Zeta wrote:It does mean that criminals will still posess guns

...

Okay, let me quote that again:

Zeta wrote:It does mean that criminals will still posess guns

...and you're OKAY WITH THIS? So it's OKAY for someone who WANTS to commit a CRIME to own a WEAPON but it's NOT okay for ME to own a WEAPON to PROTECT MYSELF and anyone I live with against CRIMINALS who own a gun? I'm sorry, Zeta, I like you and respect you but that's the most ridiculous fucking thing I've ever heard. It's OKAY FOR CRIMINALS TO HAVE GUNS AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE DOES. Yes. Good show.

Also:

Zeta wrote:They're required to know how to use them, for one.

Yes. Everyone who comes anywhere near a gun should know how to properly use it. Actually, I think everyone should be trained in gun usage; it should be taught in schools. that way, some crazy lunatic decides to shoot up the place? Everyone else shoots back. Joe Regular would think twice about threatening someone with a gun when there's a good chance that that someone will also have a gun.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:34 pm

I so knew you were going to use this argument. Luckily, it's not hard to argue against.

Videogames may be a hobby that's a waste of time, but if I get angry I can't pick up my GameCube and blow a hole in my neighbor's head from 15 feet away.

They are intellectually destructive just like some drugs. They induce aggressive tendencies which could lead people to grab that gun.

Guns are not tools. They are WEAPONS. You can choose to shoot at things that are not living with them, but that is not their intended purpose. Tools may be turned into a weapon, but a gun is a weapon that can't be used as a tool. Unless you're naive enough to think that people buy guns and then use them as expensive, loaded hammers.

Or perhaps you don't know the definition of "tool." Spazz already posted it but you either ignored him or didn't read it. A gun more then qualifies as a tool. All weapons in fact qualify as tools. Moving on.

If you take away all the legitimate means of purchasing a weapon, there's only illegal means. What does this mean? Well, for one - Joe Somebody can't just decide on a whim to walk out of K-Mart one day and start filling people of lead. It limits the distribution of guns, to an extent. And the only people who have guns will be those who know of a way to get them illegally and are willing to go through the trouble and danger of getting one.

That's a smaller percentage than you may think.

It does mean that criminals will still posess guns. But it also means that average Joe will think twice about comitting a gun crime because of all of the hassle involved in getting one.

Instead he would walk out of Wal-Mart with a crossbow or a knife or a sling shot. Eliminating guns only eliminates the convience of a crime, not the possibility of a crime.

And because they have training. And usually other tools, such as bullet-proof vests. And they can call for backup, which means that they're greater in numbers than the single criminal.

Most cops don't walk around with Kevlar on. They really don't. And yes they do have a network for backup and support, but which takes longer: you getting out your gun or you calling the police so they can bring their guns? Keep in mind there is travel time and the time it takes to relay information over the phone.

They're required to know how to use them, for one.

But wait. I thought using a gun was easy? Just point and click and instant carnage. Seriously, not a slam on cops, but there are a great deal of civilians that are just as qualified if not more qualified to use firearms.

And what does knowing how to use it have to do with reducing crime? Or are you talking about accidents? Because accidents happen with many other dangerous tools including cars.

By that logic, we shouldn't trust any police anytime because there's always the chance that they'll be crooked.

It's the same logic you are applying to all the citizens of this country that aren't in uniform.

Yes, there would still be crime. But I think it would decrease the different kinds of crime and make it a bit more managable. There are many crimes that would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish without the help of a gun.

Is that a fact? What new crime was invented when guns first came around? Because stealing, rape and murder can all be accomplished without guns. In fact, they are accomplished today. Without guns.

Don't blame shift. Guns do not cause crime. They make it easy. Stupid people cause crime. Blame them and make an example of them.

And this argument is pretty pointless. Though gun control may become tighter and certain weapons might be banned, firearms as a whole will never be banned thanks to the second amendment.