Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Nov 11, '13 at 7:59pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

From the 1st page i know nobody will want to carry around a riot shield but what if you have a gun and the other guy too he shots first before you can press the trigger but with a riot shield that bullet will not get through it and you can rush the guy.

A riot shield is made for deflecting relatively slow objects like thrown stones or beer bottles, not bullets. But sure, if you've got about $4k lying around for a good ballistic shield and feel like carrying an extra 30lbs everywhere and hope the criminal is acting alone and stands still while you run at him, go ahead. Toro! Toro! Ole! Bang.

 

Posted Nov 11, '13 at 8:48pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

A riot shield is made for deflecting relatively slow objects like thrown stones or beer bottles, not bullets.

Blame CS and CoD for misconceptions like that. Even a legit ballistic shield can only take so much punishment from small-arms fire.

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 12:06am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,231 posts

i'm sorry that's just my opinion ok i kinda understand your meaning.

Devoid wasn't talking to you..

----

Speaking of riot shields...picture this guys.
A riot shield..that fits around your entire body.
=O

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 6:24am

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,009 posts

You're trying to say that every time someone is killed by a firearm it is intentional, yet cars are totally inculpable of being used for intentional harm.

Oh my. He said that with cars you can have an accident. Not that they can't be used for intentional harm. He did say, however, that guns can only kill people. Though wrong, it's not actually a completely unreasonable claim, seeing as in Israel I think only soldiers can have guns.

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 2:58pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

Oh my. He said that with cars you can have an accident. Not that they can't be used for intentional harm.

If that's what he meant, he ought to have said that. As it stands, however, he said "There are no accidents with guns" and strongly infers that guns are only used to kill someone with intent. Furthermore, him completely ignoring the fact that vehicular homicide is a real thing doesn't lend any credence to his stance. Such is further stymied by the aforementioned view about firearms.

Regardless of the reasons why he holds such one-sided views about firearms, he still was making a straw-man argument with no basis in facts or statistics. It was based solely on opinions and (perhaps) cultural influence. i know I had to say the following once due to such a factor:

The dichotomy between the current situation in the US and Israel makes any valid comparison fall short. Besides, it's been shown throughout history that guns aren't necessary to bring about death and strife.

You should read a few pages back to get the full breadth of that quote.

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 6:31pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,231 posts

If that's what he meant, he ought to have said that. As it stands, however, he said "There are no accidents with guns" and strongly infers that guns are only used to kill someone with intent. Furthermore, him completely ignoring the fact that vehicular homicide is a real thing doesn't lend any credence to his stance. Such is further stymied by the aforementioned view about firearms.

To put things into clearer perspective..

Spare for guns designed for the military and distributed to the military for military purposes (how many times can one put military in a sentence.. )..guns, for civilian usage (saying this to exclude officers of the law), is for hunting, sport, and home protection (or bodily protection if one has a conceal/carry permit). Conversely, cars are for transportation or entertainment purposes (racing).

None of the options have any inclination for killing, yet both items have been used for such a feat, and still are being used so.
For protection, having a gun doesn't outright mean go for the kill...if you feel threatened enough to need to do so, and it is within your right, you may, but this is for protective uses.

Nevertheless, restrictions are made for receiving a car, as do they need to be made for receiving a gun. It's odd to think that you need to take more tests and go through a larger process to get a car and license than to get a gun..

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 8:00pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

Nevertheless, restrictions are made for receiving a car, as do they need to be made for receiving a gun. It's odd to think that you need to take more tests and go through a larger process to get a car and license than to get a gun..

I said that a few pages back, and it was totally ignored for some reason or another. Which truly baffles me. I thought it was a solid point deserving of further discussion.
Sadly the discussion 'segued' right back to "But da guns kills lots of da people", and that wasn't even a fact I was trying to dispute or touch upon. Granted! I could easily pull up a bazillion different gov't statistic and such to counter that. Yet what would be the point? Debates and discussions can not be won with only statistics and flowcharts.

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 8:44pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,231 posts

I said that a few pages back, and it was totally ignored for some reason or another. Which truly baffles me. I thought it was a solid point deserving of further discussion.

Not completely ignored..my point was based off of what you said there.

It is an interesting topic of discussion..might have to bring it up to some hardcore anti-gun people may know..

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 9:07pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

I said that a few pages back, and it was totally ignored for some reason or another.

I've made that argument before too, and it was ignored. Not very surprising, considering most everyone who dares to voice an opinion on the subject either seems to be on the side of "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS HUUURRRRR" or "GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!!"

 

Posted Nov 12, '13 at 9:36pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

Not completely ignored..my point was based off of what you said there.

Fair enough. I meant to say that before you mentioned it, it was totally ignored.

I've made that argument before too, and it was ignored. Not very surprising, considering most everyone who dares to voice an opinion on the subject either seems to be on the side of "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS HUUURRRRR" or "GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!!"

Yeah, that seems to be the general reaction. I knew that the gov't was amazingly polarized on an issue such as that, but thought that actual people might behave differently.

It is an interesting topic of discussion..might have to bring it up to some hardcore anti-gun people may know..

Do it. It's one of my favourite points to bring up when someone is rabidly anti-gun. They just don't see it coming or seemingly ever boarded that train of thought.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!