LA shooting

Re: LA shooting

Postby anders » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:21 pm

Jambojim52 wrote:
HC. wrote:Bottom line is, do you really want to live in a world where people feel the need to have a gun to be able to go about their daily business ?

I don't.



Depends on how you define daily business. I shoot three sometimes four times a week. Not daily but then not that far off either.
Guns have this big bad boggie thing and many only see things like this and movies. Guns are no more dangerous than a car( more die on the roads ) or other " weapon". The gun can't do anything without a human holding it and pulling the trigger.
I have a friend, he shoots with me and his partner has an almost inbred fear of guns, She discovered Babs shoots ( she was a friend of Bab's sister that died long ago ) and now comes with us shooting. Ok she doesn't want to hold a gun but she is more than happy to stand and watch when before she was terrified. Gun education would help but due to bias and some agenda the likes of the BBC won't show it. Their nature programms are well anti gun. George Digweed is multi world champion but very few have even heard his name.
Guns are neither good or bad, it's the human behind it that defines what it does.
Had this guy driven a car into the crowd( or lorry ) would everyone be demanding they were banned? ( he could have killed and injured just as many ) No obviously not!

As humans are not going to be banned, that kind of means it'd have to be the gun then.

Following the argument given, atom bombs, gas chambers, anti-personnel mines, means of mass poisoning and a host of other objects are, as inanimate objects, 'neither good nor bad' in themselves but because they can be turned to very bad indeed by misuse we've taken steps to limit the potential for misuse. Why not with guns?
Just because you're pro-gun Jim it doesn't make them a desirable thing or even a bad-thing-that-should-be-tolerated for society as a whole.


...dream on...
User avatar
anders
Confirmed Jambo
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:20 pm
Location: englandshire, near Scotland. And Bruntsfield/Merchiston

Re: LA shooting

Postby Jambojim52 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:01 pm

anders wrote:
Jambojim52 wrote:
HC. wrote:Bottom line is, do you really want to live in a world where people feel the need to have a gun to be able to go about their daily business ?

I don't.



Depends on how you define daily business. I shoot three sometimes four times a week. Not daily but then not that far off either.
Guns have this big bad boggie thing and many only see things like this and movies. Guns are no more dangerous than a car( more die on the roads ) or other " weapon". The gun can't do anything without a human holding it and pulling the trigger.
I have a friend, he shoots with me and his partner has an almost inbred fear of guns, She discovered Babs shoots ( she was a friend of Bab's sister that died long ago ) and now comes with us shooting. Ok she doesn't want to hold a gun but she is more than happy to stand and watch when before she was terrified. Gun education would help but due to bias and some agenda the likes of the BBC won't show it. Their nature programms are well anti gun. George Digweed is multi world champion but very few have even heard his name.
Guns are neither good or bad, it's the human behind it that defines what it does.
Had this guy driven a car into the crowd( or lorry ) would everyone be demanding they were banned? ( he could have killed and injured just as many ) No obviously not!

As humans are not going to be banned, that kind of means it'd have to be the gun then.

Following the argument given, atom bombs, gas chambers, anti-personnel mines, means of mass poisoning and a host of other objects are, as inanimate objects, 'neither good nor bad' in themselves but because they can be turned to very bad indeed by misuse we've taken steps to limit the potential for misuse. Why not with guns?
Just because you're pro-gun Jim it doesn't make them a desirable thing or even a bad-thing-that-should-be-tolerated for society as a whole.


Many more people are killed on roads than by guns( outwith wars ) however no one is calling for cars to be banned or even more regulated.
Had this guy driven a lorry into the open air concert ( remember 18 wheelers are huge with loads of power and hard to stop ) then he could have done just as much damage and lorries would still be on the roads.
All or most of the items you list are weapons of mass destruction that people can't simply buy, so I don't see the relevance.
Guns are a tool and a recreational implement ( just the same as golf clubs) and it's people's ignorance of guns that make them the big bad boggie item.
I agree that the USA could have /should have had better ,tighter regulation, but it's too late now. Even if they do try there are so many guns it will take years for it to have any impact.
The numbers killed are a fraction of those killed on roads in the USA and no amount of moral outrage will change traffic laws it's the same with guns,people kill people and the implement makes little difference.
There are huge numbers of guns in this country and very little of this type of thing happens here, it's only when someone gets to the stage of being mentally ill that things go wrong.
The Manchester bombing killed 23 and 250 injured (and had he entered the hall many more would have died,) yet the ingredients of making a bomb can be found under your kitchen sink. Do you want to ban Domestos?
Jambojim52
Head of conspiracy theories
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: LA shooting

Postby anders » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:15 pm

Sorry, I can't accept the argument. All the things I listed have one use - to do harm. As with guns.


Yes of course a car or a bottle of domestos can be turned to harm as can a branch or a hand. Those however don't exist to cause harm therefore it really is when a person goes nuts that they get reassigned in their use. Guns, (like bombs like mines) design is to cause harm, no?


...dream on...
User avatar
anders
Confirmed Jambo
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:20 pm
Location: englandshire, near Scotland. And Bruntsfield/Merchiston

Re: LA shooting

Postby Jambojim52 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:41 pm

anders wrote:Sorry, I can't accept the argument. All the things I listed have one use - to do harm. As with guns.


Yes of course a car or a bottle of domestos can be turned to harm as can a branch or a hand. Those however don't exist to cause harm therefore it really is when a person goes nuts that they get reassigned in their use. Guns, (like bombs like mines) design is to cause harm, no?


The items you list about are made by governments to protect themselves or to over power a weaker nation and if you can dismiss car or Domestos then I too can dismiss the items you list.

Guns are used to provide food ( maybe not so much now ) but they are still used for that reason. The guns I use are for recreation, what right do you have, to say I can't enjoy my sport? Likewise who are you to say the Olympic medals won at shooting are any less valid to the sportsman( woman ). I don't complain about other sports such as golf so why should anyone get to stop me in my sport?
Without guns the countryside would be decimated, as it's shooting sports that bring in much of rural communities income.
Many ( I assume you too ) have never been near a ( real ) gun, and if you did try it who knows, you may well be converted, but until that day you, or anyone else shouldn't be allowed to end my sport because some nutter in the USA decides to go on the rampage.
People will kill other people it's that simple. Guns are a tool like any other and it's how it's used that is wrong. Legal responsible ownership means I have every right to own a gun just as you are allowed to have a lethal weapon sitting at your door.( car )
Jambojim52
Head of conspiracy theories
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: LA shooting

Postby anders » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:12 pm

Jambojim52 wrote:
anders wrote:Sorry, I can't accept the argument. All the things I listed have one use - to do harm. As with guns.


Yes of course a car or a bottle of domestos can be turned to harm as can a branch or a hand. Those however don't exist to cause harm therefore it really is when a person goes nuts that they get reassigned in their use. Guns, (like bombs like mines) design is to cause harm, no?


The items you list about are made by governments to protect themselves or to over power a weaker nation and if you can dismiss car or Domestos then I too can dismiss the items you list.

Guns are used to provide food ( maybe not so much now ) but they are still used for that reason. The guns I use are for recreation, what right do you have, to say I can't enjoy my sport? Likewise who are you to say the Olympic medals won at shooting are any less valid to the sportsman( woman ). I don't complain about other sports such as golf so why should anyone get to stop me in my sport?
Without guns the countryside would be decimated, as it's shooting sports that bring in much of rural communities income.
Many ( I assume you too ) have never been near a ( real ) gun, and if you did try it who knows, you may well be converted, but until that day you, or anyone else shouldn't be allowed to end my sport because some nutter in the USA decides to go on the rampage.
People will kill other people it's that simple. Guns are a tool like any other and it's how it's used that is wrong. Legal responsible ownership means I have every right to own a gun just as you are allowed to have a lethal weapon sitting at your door.( car )

I'm not going to get into a row over it, so it's best we stop now. The reason it's best we stop is because I don't accept your new arguments either. Frinstance:
- if I can dismiss car/Domestos then you can dismiss land mines and gas chambers and atom bombs. Equating those things? Get real Jim.
- Guns are there to provide food - and how could they do that if it's not by doing harm
- who am I to devalue Olympic medals. I don't recall writing anything of the sort.
- shooting brings in much of rural communities' income - from my own experience it brings in a tiny percentage (I've lived in a rural community in a mostly rural area for almost 40 years. My brother ran a sports-shooting business). 'Much of the income' is wildly overstating it, it provides a sideline and for very few of the population.
- been near a gun. Uh-huh.


...dream on...
User avatar
anders
Confirmed Jambo
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:20 pm
Location: englandshire, near Scotland. And Bruntsfield/Merchiston

Re: LA shooting

Postby Jambojim52 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:42 pm

anders wrote:
Jambojim52 wrote:
anders wrote:Sorry, I can't accept the argument. All the things I listed have one use - to do harm. As with guns.


Yes of course a car or a bottle of domestos can be turned to harm as can a branch or a hand. Those however don't exist to cause harm therefore it really is when a person goes nuts that they get reassigned in their use. Guns, (like bombs like mines) design is to cause harm, no?


The items you list about are made by governments to protect themselves or to over power a weaker nation and if you can dismiss car or Domestos then I too can dismiss the items you list.

Guns are used to provide food ( maybe not so much now ) but they are still used for that reason. The guns I use are for recreation, what right do you have, to say I can't enjoy my sport? Likewise who are you to say the Olympic medals won at shooting are any less valid to the sportsman( woman ). I don't complain about other sports such as golf so why should anyone get to stop me in my sport?
Without guns the countryside would be decimated, as it's shooting sports that bring in much of rural communities income.
Many ( I assume you too ) have never been near a ( real ) gun, and if you did try it who knows, you may well be converted, but until that day you, or anyone else shouldn't be allowed to end my sport because some nutter in the USA decides to go on the rampage.
People will kill other people it's that simple. Guns are a tool like any other and it's how it's used that is wrong. Legal responsible ownership means I have every right to own a gun just as you are allowed to have a lethal weapon sitting at your door.( car )

I'm not going to get into a row over it, so it's best we stop now. The reason it's best we stop is because I don't accept your new arguments either. Frinstance:
- if I can dismiss car/Domestos then you can dismiss land mines and gas chambers and atom bombs. Equating those things? Get real Jim.
- Guns are there to provide food - and how could they do that if it's not by doing harm
- who am I to devalue Olympic medals. I don't recall writing anything of the sort.
- shooting brings in much of rural communities' income - from my own experience it brings in a tiny percentage (I've lived in a rural community in a mostly rural area for almost 40 years. My brother ran a sports-shooting business). 'Much of the income' is wildly overstating it, it provides a sideline and for very few of the population.
- been near a gun. Uh-huh.


Never get in a row, A. This is a message board and people have different views.
However it does annoy me when people who know nothing ( not you ) attack my sport because some nutter in another country does something at offends.
Most of what I wrote was more an example of replies to things people say and do, to put down a legitimate sport.
Millions of pounds annually are spent on shooting but many refuse to see it. Then you get the facebook generation, so easily offended when people disagree with them or they try to out do each other with how offended they are.
People kill each other with guns,cars and knives getting upset when it happens thousands of mile away is not my thing.
Jambojim52
Head of conspiracy theories
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:29 pm

Previous

Return to The terracing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron