Dovashin wrote

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote Hmm so when I... wait the GUN kills someone, it should go to jail not me?

A gun cannot kill a person without another person enabling it to. Since you were the one who pulled the trigger, you then enabled the gun to fire a bullet, and thus kill a person. However, without it, you wouldn't have killed the person, therefore the gun was the cause of death. So, the gun killed the person.

However, you would go to jail because you enabled the gun to fire a bullet.

I love how you just contradicted yourself and repeated what I said earlier, yet you are stuck on the same motive that guns kill people. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire. I can kill someone with the ammo cartridge or butt of the gun too. What difference does it make.

"YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire."

But, the bullet of the gun causes the death itself.

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote Hmm so when I... wait the GUN kills someone, it should go to jail not me?

A gun cannot kill a person without another person enabling it to. Since you were the one who pulled the trigger, you then enabled the gun to fire a bullet, and thus kill a person. However, without it, you wouldn't have killed the person, therefore the gun was the cause of death. So, the gun killed the person.

However, you would go to jail because you enabled the gun to fire a bullet.

I love how you just contradicted yourself and repeated what I said earlier, yet you are stuck on the same motive that guns kill people. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire. I can kill someone with the ammo cartridge or butt of the gun too. What difference does it make.

"YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire."

But, the bullet of the gun causes the death itself.

Ah so the bullet is to blame now. You seem to be falling back on your words. I'm not trying to flame you or anything but your argument is scattered.

You realise this is a pointless arguement?

The bullet kills the person, caused by the human. We all agree on that.
Either way..the person kills the other person.

You dont hear a case of "Man uses gun to fire bullet which kills another man"
Its simply "man shoots man"
The method of how it is done is irrelivant

Dovashin wrote

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote Hmm so when I... wait the GUN kills someone, it should go to jail not me?

A gun cannot kill a person without another person enabling it to. Since you were the one who pulled the trigger, you then enabled the gun to fire a bullet, and thus kill a person. However, without it, you wouldn't have killed the person, therefore the gun was the cause of death. So, the gun killed the person.

However, you would go to jail because you enabled the gun to fire a bullet.

I love how you just contradicted yourself and repeated what I said earlier, yet you are stuck on the same motive that guns kill people. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire. I can kill someone with the ammo cartridge or butt of the gun too. What difference does it make.

"YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire."

But, the bullet of the gun causes the death itself.

Ah so the bullet is to blame now. You seem to be falling back on your words. I'm not trying to flame you or anything but your argument is scattered.

Well a gun fires bullets that harm/kill people. All I'm saying is that guns kill people, it's as simple as that. We say that person X killed person Y because the person decides to pull the trigger, but the gun executed the action of killing the person, therefore it "killed the person".

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote

Establish wrote

Dovashin wrote Hmm so when I... wait the GUN kills someone, it should go to jail not me?

A gun cannot kill a person without another person enabling it to. Since you were the one who pulled the trigger, you then enabled the gun to fire a bullet, and thus kill a person. However, without it, you wouldn't have killed the person, therefore the gun was the cause of death. So, the gun killed the person.

However, you would go to jail because you enabled the gun to fire a bullet.

I love how you just contradicted yourself and repeated what I said earlier, yet you are stuck on the same motive that guns kill people. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire. I can kill someone with the ammo cartridge or butt of the gun too. What difference does it make.

"YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, the human cause the gun to fire."

But, the bullet of the gun causes the death itself.

Ah so the bullet is to blame now. You seem to be falling back on your words. I'm not trying to flame you or anything but your argument is scattered.

Well a gun fires bullets that harm/kill people. All I'm saying is that guns kill people, it's as simple as that. We say that person X killed person Y because the person decides to pull the trigger, but the gun executed the action of killing the person, therefore it "killed the person".

I'm going to end this argument right now. You just said the gun was the root of the kill yet the bullet is what cause the death. You are creating contradictions left and right, which has lowered the credibility of your argument. The human is the root. The branches of a tree cannot grow without the tree, and the tree cannot grow without the roots. Anything else said from you on this topic I will not respond to. As you have created contradictions you cannot get out of.

Well America's homicide rate is 4.8 : 1 with the UK.

So I don't know how you can't see where people come from when they say that they don't want guns because there is an obvious less of a chance of dying.

Yes it defends you but it also makes you more vulnerable cause the person you're trying to defend yourself against will most likely have a gun.

There are a lot more public attacks and school shootings as well which doesn't happen in countries like the UK a lot cause you can't get very far with a knife.

Then if there is any major threats, UK Police do have guns to do deal with them.

I don't hate guns but I think the only people that should own them are the Police.

If there were no guns what would the first settlers have used to free themselves from the British and found America, swords? in a 3-v-3000 combat ratio?

Bhoy wrote Well America's homicide rate is 4.8 : 1 with the UK.

So I don't know how you can't see where people come from when they say that they don't want guns because there is an obvious less of a chance of dying.

Yes it defends you but it also makes you more vulnerable cause the person you're trying to defend yourself against will most likely have a gun.

There are a lot more public attacks and school shootings as well which doesn't happen in countries like the UK a lot cause you can't get very far with a knife.

Then if there is any major threats, UK Police do have guns to do deal with them.

I don't hate guns but I think the only people that should own them are the Police.

I can cherry-pick statistics, too.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.[7][broken citation]

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US.[8]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you're trying to crunch numbers to explain the situation, you have no idea what's going on.

r00t wrote

Bhoy wrote Well America's homicide rate is 4.8 : 1 with the UK.

So I don't know how you can't see where people come from when they say that they don't want guns because there is an obvious less of a chance of dying.

Yes it defends you but it also makes you more vulnerable cause the person you're trying to defend yourself against will most likely have a gun.

There are a lot more public attacks and school shootings as well which doesn't happen in countries like the UK a lot cause you can't get very far with a knife.

Then if there is any major threats, UK Police do have guns to do deal with them.

I don't hate guns but I think the only people that should own them are the Police.

I can cherry-pick statistics, too.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.[7][broken citation]

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US.[8]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you're trying to crunch numbers to explain the situation, you have no idea what's going on.

Okay, scrap the statistics I just copy crap to emphasise my point but that wasn't what I was trying to focus on, I was more aiming at the fact that anytime you turn on the news, there has been mass murders or school shootings in America. Yet in the UK, you don't get that very often. The last time a mass school shooting happened here was in 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland when it was a lot easier to legally get hold of a handgun and the person that killed everyone, legally owned the gun.

If people didn't use guns in these attacks, it would be over in minutes.

Can you explain to me why mass murders and school shootings happen more in America if the fact it's easier to kill people isn't a reason?

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, 1989 Monkseaton shootings and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.

Seems like their has been more that you haven't heard of.