Are guns dangerous?

Are guns dangerous?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon
twitter.com/AnonBabble

no

No shit you fucking retard. It's a high power machine designed to kill things.

Whatcha up to Ahmed?

Only if you're stupid

Only in the hands of niggers and mudslimes.

Intrinsically? No. Facilitatively, sure. Just like most objects. With higher potential for harm? Depends.

>dangerous
>able or likely to cause harm or injury

A gun is not likely let alone able to cause harm or injury without the influence of an outside source.

Therefore, the answer is no.

This is the only correct answer based in fact that will be in this thread.

yes, duh. they are devices designed specifically to maim and kill. if they aren't inherently dangerous then fucking nothing is.

inb4 hurr durr guns are safe its people that are dangerous. the statistics on accidental gun injuries and deaths beg to differ. find me the equivalent with knives, oh wait you cant

No, they have a safety so that means theyre safe

Only as dangerous as the person holding them

no, but fagots who don't know how to engage the safety and that have poor trigger discipline are.

If someone is holding one, they are dangerous.
If you have a really really crap one, it is incredibly dangerous
If it's just lying there unloaded and safetied, no.

this is a fallacy. a knife or a blowtorch are also "not dangerous" by this twisted stretch of a definition. the implication is and has been from the start that the item in question is in the hands of someone who means to do harm. with this in mind, a gun is clearly far and away more dangerous than most other potentially dangerous items.

the mental gymnastics at play here are insane. I'm actually pretty pro guns myself but come the fuck on you just sound delusional.

They are potentially deadly. Just like being homosexual.

I'm guessing ur the fat type with a Swiss Army knife collection ?

I have an extensive collection of shotguns and rifles, for hunting. I got my hunter's safety certification when I was still in middle school and have used and been around guns my entire life. That said, the facts about guns and their social impact are pretty undeniable.

guns dont kill people.

people kill people.

Not a fallacy, nor a stretch of the definition.

A stretch of the definition is to say, "well, people use a gun to be dangerous, therefore it is dangerous."

Your argument implies that literally everything in this world is dangerous.

I could kill someone with a spoon, a pillow, a puppy, a stick of butter, a shampoo bottle, water, oxygen, etc. Are these items considered "dangerous"?

My statement was a fact. Yours is a "stretch of the definition".

user didn't say that, they are designed to kill. That's fine but that's what they're designed for.

no, bullets are

No see, once again you misunderstand.

A puppy is not designed to kill or maim. A gun is. A knife is designed to cut, which is one way to kill or maim. A shampoo bottle is not. Your argument is a fallacy by omission, you are conveniently ignoring inherent properties of the items being discussed because they would reflect poorly on your overall point.

But yeah keep on believing that guns are no more inherently dangerous than puppies. That's totally not ridiculous at all and isn't a fine summation of the mental gymnastics that your side goes through everyday to pretend that guns jesus.

No gun is designed to kill. Every single gun is designed to fire a projectile.

Bullets are designed to kill. Or injure, or stun.

I can shoot nothing but beanbags out of my shotgun all day and never kill anyone because the shotgun was made to fire a projectile, and I chose a non lethal projectile. The shotgun did its job.

No. People are dangerous.

no. try if you don't believe me.

They were actually designed to kill animals and later became a tool to kill people for the sole purpose of war.

The problem is, bad people found out guns are the perfect tool to kill people and now GOOD people need them to protect them from bad people.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Implying that criminals, who by definition do not follow laws will follow anti-gun laws is simply autistic at it's core.

I'm pro gun I was was just stating that's they're designed for.

*what

To your first point, semantics. You know damn well that most guns are used to fire bullets, whether at people or animals or targets that are meant to represent either of the former. I'm sure you aren't implying that lethal ammunition should be regulated heavily and replaced with bean bags and blanks, so your second point is fucking irrelevant. The problem with guns isn't people shooting each other with fucking bean bags.

So basically fuck your semantics and face the facts.

If you shoot someone, do people blame the gun, or you?

Thus, whoever possess the weapon is dangerous, not the weapon itself.

No, mine has been leaning against a wall like a cool ass motherfucker for like a week now.

nope, idiots with guns can be dangerous
also niggers
and sandniggers

And a person is an animal. Like, even if I grant you that guns were "originally designed to kill animals" and that somehow people don't fall under that definition, what difference does that make to your overall position? None whatsoever. The problem with guns today remains that people are using them to effectively kill each other with little or no regulation to stop them. Your whole point is a non-sequiter

Obviously not

now just place it in your mouth and pull the trigger

Guns enable people to become dangerous.
Thus gun are partly dangerous.

Ok, well then by your own logic then your argument is also flawed because it is also designed to protect.

Therefore, since you seem to reject the fact that something can be both harmless and dangerous in different contexts you are wrong.

Guns were not designed to kill people. They were designed to kill animals for food. They then became a common tool for war and got in the hands of DANGEROUS PEOPLE and are now used by dangerous people to hurt non-dangerous people.

Non-dangerous people use them for protection against dangerous people.

Therefore, they protect the majority (non-dangerous people) against the minority (dangerous people).

Since by your own logic there cannot be multiple definitions of a noun then we must accept the majority definition.

Since most people if in possession of a gun are not inherently dangerous then we must say that "no, guns are not dangerous".

This is by your own logic so any argument you may have now is completely invalid as you would be arguing with yourself and therefore insane or autistic.

ITT: one dude scared of big scary guns uses big words to dance around the fact his feelings aren't important.

By that logic literally everything on this planet is dangerous.

Whoa whoa whoa, Swiss army knives are excellent tools. No need to try and associate them with fat idiots.

You'd think this would be a pretty simply point to grasp but gun fanatics seem quite obstinate in their utter refusal to acknowledge it in any way shape or form. Its kind of pathetic actually to see what I assume are otherwise reasonable, logical people twist their thinking every which way to keep from accepting this basic fact.

>literally everything on this planet is dangerous.
Not that user but that is true

They should ban legos for faggots like you because you could make a lego AR-15 and take it to a bar and cause mayhem

>ITT fucking morons talk shit about the NRA

shoot yourslf & find out

None of my guns have a safety.

>If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
and law enforcement, and military, and security services

>Implying that criminals, who by definition do not follow laws will follow anti-gun laws is simply autistic at it's core.

criminals will need to break law in the attempt to obtain guns and ammo
that is serious undertaking in develop world, you dont just go out to the docks and start screaming - who want to sell me a gun

what I am saying is that theres high risk of getting apprehended during obtaining of gun, especially for you classic "shooting up school cause I am aspie as fuck" retard

Theres high chance that a criminal would be appre

youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

Again, by this logic literally everything is dangerous.

Ofc not

its not like its only purpose is to send a peice of lead flying at 5,000 ft/s

and its not like it was created to kill or anything like that

people are dangerous not guns.

If guns are not dangerous, why do firing ranges have so many safety rules? Pretty sure they'd say it's because guns are dangerous.

here.
I'm not pro-gun. In fact I'm Australian so I wouldn't get a say, but from an outsiders perspective it's all bullshit. Like that old saying goes

"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them"

The amount of police raids in 'Straya which result in finding weapons is quite astonishing. Guns are what you make of them. Give everyone a gun and only the immoral will use them.

Thus proving my point, the only danger is the person behind the gun.

Once again you've completely ignored my point and devolved the discussion into semantics. Well done.

Guns were still designed to maim and kill, whether for animals or for people, and this is what I've been saying all along. A gun doesn't care if its shot at a deer or a person, because its designed to maim and kill anything its shot at. So your whole "kill animals for food" point falls flat on its ass.

For that matter, a gun doesn't care if its used for defense or aggression. A gun doesn't protect anyone, a person with a gun protects themselves just like a person with a gun assaults someone with that gun. I've never denied this, by the way, since my point never revolved around predicting how people will use guns, merely that guns are dangerous because they are designed to maim and kill and therefore any violent situation involving a gun will be inherently more dangerous than one without.

I never said anything about nouns and do not accept your "majority definition", you either misunderstand me or your putting ideas into my mouth that are not mine. Either way, you're arguing with a strawman right now. Arguing from plurality is a different sort of fallacy, by the way.

Acknowledge that I was correct earlier and your own point was and mostly remains semantics.

would you consider a 3 year old dangarous? i dont think so, put a gun in her hands and all of the sudden shes dangarous, so is the 3 year old dangarous or is it the gun?

Because if you're a moron and fuck something up somebody's 12 year old son gets shot in the face. If you're not a moron and handle the gun safely and responsibly then everyone has a good time in their day at the range

Magic huh?

My gun hasn't shot anyone including myself yet. I think it's defective.

>implying you can stop the imports from countries who don't give a fuck about domestic laws (Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan)
We've already seen that this is impossible time and time again. It's the same concept as why the war on drugs has been a failure.

You're living a pipe dream if you think you can go "No more guns guys mmm'kay?" and there will be any positive affect on murder rates whatsoever.

umm no. if you want a gun in a country with banned firearms, you can get one relatively easily. also, when a country bans firearms, crime rates increase dramatically because the criminals know they'll face less resistance.

But you're still saying that extra precautions are necessary when dealing with guns to ensure safety. While this applies to a lot of things, it does imply that the use of guns is inherently dangerous.

This is why me we need to start sending guns to prison instead of shooters. Same with an active shooter situation. Just shoot the gun instead of the messed up kid.

The man holding the gun was dangerous. He put himself into that situation by not securing his weapon.

No more dangerous than a car.

Yes, he put himself in that position by not appropriately securing a dangerous object.

No, It implies humans are stupid and there needs to be some regulations and safety procedures in place.

So it's no more high risk than drugs though. Not to mention people do go down to the docks and shout what they need but that's why slang was invented. Also, only outlaws will have guns until the police show up 30 min later. Which the police are always unreliable anyway.

>humans are stupid
I don't think you'll get any arguments there.

A gun does what its told, whether its a little kid who got their hands on it (like my brother did when he was 2) or a police officer.

A spoon can be dangerous to a fatass just like a plugging a lamp into the wall can spark a fire. This world is dangerous, it's faggot snowflakes who explicitly point out guns because they grew up whining and crying about EVERYTHING

sure you can stop import, how exactly do you think UK and australia is doing their thing
of course not 100% stop, but the price of guns on the blackmarket in those countries is MUCH more higher than the US, unobtainable for regular folks who are not little savers that rather buy gum and risk prison than for same price buying new toyota truck

You are living on lsd if you think that reduction in guns wont affect dead people
not to mention your cops would stop being trigger happy morons

no you cant get gun relatively easy
and no, developed wetern countries dont have higher crime rates because criminals now dont fear for their life.. jesus where the fuck do you live?

desire for drugs in general population is much greater than desire for gun
guns are also less accepted than drugs, get fucked up on drugs all you want idea, vs - did you just buy thing to kill people for the price of a new car? What for?

>mfw the places that do have the highest amounts of gun crime are socioeconomically fucked predominantly black gang residing places
>mfw gun control laws is at its strictest there
>mfw the crime still makes of the majority of the overall gun crime
>mfw people say the overwhelming majority who follows the law should be fucked because of the literal shit minority
>mfw the scary assault rifles are the rarest guns to be used in a crime but people say they should be the ones banned but handguns are literally the overwhelming majority of gun crime but they're fine
>mfw the focus of society isn't at all helping the shit minority it's guns are scary and cops are racist!
>mfw you're one of those fags who posts some drunk guy telling jokes as some smug form of evidence for you argument

Since you want to point out two micro-examples of UK and Australia that are "working" let me offer up a micro-example of my own: Cook County (Chicago)

I'm someone else but I have to point out that an inanimate object is not more dangerous than another one by itself because of its design. He was saying people are the dangerous aspect because of their motive and not the origin of the weapon. For example, trucks are not designed to kill, yet in Nice, France a human used a truck to kill over 80 people. Had he not driven the truck it wouldn't have killed anyone. In fact, that terrorist without a weapon was deadlier than Omar Mateen who only killed 50 people with an inanimate object designed to "kill and maim" as you put it. So no, guns are not dangerous by themselves, and no a blowtorch or sword, or grenade are not any more dangerous than another inanimate object designed without the intent to harm life because they will continue to lay where they are until the motive to do harm acts upon those objects first.

>mwf when nigger goes for a ride in a car for 30 minutes and is out of "strict gun control area"
>mfw tards were talking about scarry assault rifles not being used, and then orlando happens

One thing I dont get
why are you tards pretend to be reasonable, talk about protection
and then are against ban on assault style weapons
I dont want to get in to defintion on words, but long barrel high magazine kind of guns

why not ban them? They are terrible choice for home protection. They are overkill for huntung.
Why letting rednecks roam with AR15 and MCX?

Human beings are also animals. And no, the earliest firearms were designed for warfare, i.e. to kill people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon

Well you're wrong. If you really support gun rights, you might actually learn something about gun history.

Yeah so drugs aren't more popular than guns at all. Maybe where you're at but in the US everyone knows someone with a gun. But at this point (used to be different) I'd actually have to talk to a complete stranger to get some drugs. Even MJ. So guns are more common and guns are still popular where the population doesn't have much crime and violent crime.

Nope.

Muslims are.

The idea was with banning
sure you know guy with a gun, because he can go in to a store and buy one for the price of a play station

but people dont go out, hey what are we going to do this friday, we got some money for weed and LSD, or we can get old 9mm beretta for $17,000
so what do you guys want to do?

do you see the point?

Designed to shoot things. Nothing more nothing less.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but when people debate, they generally use terms acceptable for the context. In our case "animals" refers to creatures of the wild that may be hunted or defended against by Mankind. Not refuting your point about their origin though. Just pointing out that your correction of his use of "animal" in the context of arguing about guns is garbage. You know he's talking about deer, rabbits, and elk.

guns don't kill people-bullets do

Probably because the people who have these rifles use them overwhelmingly legally and safely. Mass shootings make up less than 1 percent of gun violence. And then the majority of mass shootings aren't even done with those rifles. They're done with handguns. Again the majority of those mass shooting aren't the crazy guy picks up a gun and shoots up a school or club cause he's a crazy Muslim. The majority of them are the guys back in those shit socioeconomic neighborhoods fucking with gangs and stuff. The only reason to want to ban rifles like the AR 15 is because the media, who doesn't know shit about guns, tells you how scary they are and over sensationalize everything about them and even sometimes misinforms people.

...

Yes. Anyone who actually supports gun ownership knows this. If guns weren't dangerous, they wouldn't have gun safety courses. Guns being dangerous is intrinsic to their value. We, the people, need guns because we need to be a danger. We need to be a danger to the government, such that they never take our acquiescence for granted. We need to be a danger to each other, such that there are dire consequences for trespass against each other. This is the foundation of society, the social contract. I can kill you, but I refrain from doing so because I don't wish you to kill me. An armed society is a polite society. An unarmed society isn't really a society, it's a bunch of sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

Almost nothing is dangerous by that definition. The only thing that might qualify as dangerous with no human input whatsoever is a forest fire or earthquake or other natural disaster.

Now are you talking about your perspective from the UK where guns don't really exist or in the US where people say "Hey guys how about we go down to the range Friday and teach my son how to shoot at 300 yards?" I think that's better than "Hey Tom, can I get an 8 ball for my son? He's been real hungry lately because I have to feed my addiction and I haven't bought any food so I figured this Friday we could split that 8 ball and get crazy."

Best logic I've ever heard.

Fuck you, you condescending shit. Your premises are fucking wrong, next time try looking it up instead of assuming. I pointed out that humans are animals because the simple fact is guns were originally designed to kill humans.

Forgot to add. If you really want to make this country better by lowering the violence with guns, violence in general, and crime in general while preserving the rights of our people we should be focusing even just a little bit about the root of the problem. You get rid of the black population in this country and our gun violence rates plummet down to any other nation like Australia or in Europe. That's the problem. We need to find away to help that society instead of just shifting the blame to objects that are largely used responsibly and on simply just race baiting.

Ask the question differently:

Is a stupid person ith a gun dangerous? -> yes

Is a conscious and normal person with a gun dangerous? -> no

there you go

/thread

Yes.
Also tapwater is dangerous.
Walking outside is dangerous.
talking to strangers is dangerous.

Doesnt matter if they are in 1% just because you have 1/3 of all mass shootings in the world.

They are represented and they posses danger to the law enforcment and general public without any reasoning why keeping them allowed.
Especially high cappacity magazines is the issue here

>why are you banning my tank, when only 1% of mass shootings invovled guy with a tank

you see?

WHY NOT TO BAN THEM? what purpose do they serve?

you see you dont have an answer, so stop pretending its about personal safety or some statistics. You just like guns thats all.

we talked about black market and desire of people to get something from it
I am sorry if you cant follow
also dad from your story could go with his son to shooting range, shooting low caliber spor pistols, or even hunting rifles.
funny thing that with all that shooting, americans are not represented in shooting dicsiplines in olympics or biatlon

try ending war on drugs first, before trying to kill everyone of some race

Pussies enable women to become whores.
Thus women are partly whores.

Shut the fuck up.

yep. but hey everyone drives cars without traffic laws, because cars are not designed to maim and kill, and humans never screw up, and always pay attention to what the are doing. (here is looking at you shaving/applying make up driver)

I would be very interested in learning to shoot beanbags out of my shotgun

> (OP)
>Ask the question differently:
>Is a stupid person ith a gun dangerous? -> yes
>Is a conscious and normal person with a gun dangerous? -> no
>there you go
>/thread
If you remove the word guns from these questions we have the same result. Therefore guns are not the issue.
/thread

>Is a stupid person ith a gun dangerous? -> yes
>Is a conscious and normal person with a gun dangerous? -> sometimes

ftfy

>mfw 60 homicides in a weekend within the "strict gun control area"

>mfw Canada and Mexico wouldn't be an excellent source for imports

>mfw stupid nigger thinks that you can make the entire United States a "strict no gun zone"

>mfw I have no face

Enjoy your Marshall Law, cuck. That's the only way you can enforce no civilians with guns.

Also, RIP Bernie. It's becoming overwhelmingly apparent that you are a Bernie cuck.

I can agree on that.
But then again, most of "somtimes", the person has a valid reason...

Such as?

Self defence for example

Ladders are

its always funny how morrons think that some simple tasks are impossible even though they have been done before
can shit be harder or less effective? sure
can it still be done over few decades with relatively simple laws and enforcmnet?

I am from europe btw, you enjoy corrupt incompeten hillary or trump, guy who believes vaccinations cause autism and that global warming is a hoax