If only they had banned guns in Korea

[Crying Hyena]

Oh wait... they did.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-21-south-korea-stabbing_N.htm?csp=34

[DR.NUMBERS]

In 2003, a 56-year-old man with a record of mental illness set a subway train on fire in the southern city of Daegu, killing 198 people.

Wow.... M-M-Monsterkill.


EDIT: The moral of this story is people kill people, things don't. GL banning matches/petrol.

[Fizbanui]

Wow.... M-M-Monsterkill.

Godlike

[Traep]

They should have just given that crazy man a gun.

[Lethn]

Guns are only as dangerous as the people who use them, fucks sake if your going to ban something have the sense to ban sharp weaponry being carried around in public ( like that'll be possible to stop ) but honestly, I find knives more dangerous because you can end up even hurting yourself if your not careful with it.

Guns on the other hand can only be fired if you intentionally pull the trigger.

[Killuminati]

Reading comprehension 4tw!

They aren't talking about the original guy in the article and note this...

In 2003, a 56-year-old man with a record of mental illness set a subway train on fire in the southern city of Daegu, killing 198 people.

[Jester814]

Wow.... M-M-Monsterkill.


EDIT: The moral of this story is people kill people, things don't. GL banning matches/petrol.

Wow I was serving in Korea when that happened O_o

Didn't hear a thing about it.

[Matriel]

Wow I was serving in Korea when that happened O_o

Didn't hear a thing about it.

Cause you were busy being drunk and buying whores. And that's why being stationed in Korea is awesome.

[Tzacharu]

In 2003, a 56-year-old man with a record of mental illness set a subway train on fire in the southern city of Daegu, killing 198 people.

Ban mental illness IMO.

[angelfang]

Stupid thread. Imagine how much more carnage he could've caused with a gun.

[Aragoni]

Stupid thread. Imagine how much more carnage he could've caused with a gun.

An MG-42 in the middle of the middle of Seoul... :sly:

[Scully]

Stupid thread. Imagine how much more carnage he could've caused with a gun.

Indeed...

[Matriel]

Stupid thread. Imagine how much more carnage he could've caused with a gun.

Depends if he could accurately aim or not. Doubtful for those of us that actually know things about firearms.

[DR.NUMBERS]

Stupid thread. Imagine how much more carnage he could've caused with a gun.

That's retarded. That would mean a shooter would need at least 198 bullets, lets call it 200 hundred because he'd have to buy 2 boxes of 100. That's not taking into account any shots he misses or any shots that aren't 1-hit kills. In actuality he'd probably need something like 500rds once you take into account misses/wounding shots.

Lets say he has a 15rd 9mm. He'd have to reload over 13 times to kill that many people. Who carries 13 clips? No-one. Who's going to manually reload a clip 13 times during a shooting spree? No-one. If he had an 8rd gun the number of time he'd have to reload would jump to 25.

Either he'd be killed/apprehended before 198 or his victims would all escape in the time it takes him to reload. Retarded. He would have done LESS damage with a handgun.

[Deadman15]

That's retarded. That would mean a shooter would need at least 198 bullets, lets call it 200 hundred because he'd have to buy 2 boxes of 100. That's not taking into account any shots he misses or any shots that aren't 1-hit kills. In actuality he'd probably need something like 500rds once you take into account misses/wounding shots.

Lets say he has a 15rd 9mm. He'd have to reload over 13 times to kill that many people. Who carries 13 clips? No-one. Who's going to manually reload a clip 13 times during a shooting spree? No-one.

Either he'd be killed/apprehended before 198 or his victims would all escape in the time it takes him to reload. Retarded. He would have done LESS damage with a handgun.

Unless he caves in the subway, that way he can kill each one without distraction.

[Achromic]

An MG-42 in the middle of the middle of Seoul... :sly:

Fantastic support weapon scares the shit out of people who never heard it fire.

This reminds me of the Washington D.C. gun ban. They thought by banning guns in D.C. things would be safe but in reality D.C. has such a bad problem with gangs and unregistered firearms. It's good the supreme court over ruled the ban recently, think it was last year if I recall.

Lethn is right the unstable mentally problematic person is a dangerous holder. Even a toy can be used as a weapon in their cases. Guns cannot shoot people if you have one loaded and on say a table. But if someone has in in their hands and they aren't right then shits gonna get messy.

[DR.NUMBERS]

Unless he caves in the subway, that way he can kill each one without distraction.

Lol, if he has explosives he might as well just use them on the train. Also, once he's sealed himself in, who's to say he wouldn't be resisted and overpowered?

[Deadman15]

Lol, if he has explosives he migh as well just use them on the train. Also, once he's sealed himself in, who's to say he wouldn't be resisted and overpowered?

Your missing the whole point, you know how fun it would be to try yourself against 198 people?

As for the resistance though, he could set up like roadblocks in the subway that each has a gun behind it and all are loaded.

[bluthorn]

Next weeks headlines...

"Korea bans all flammable material. All Koreans forced to wear rubber"

[Damwa]

Listen, this issue has been beaten to death and beyond - the people who have read and posted in these threads should know better than to perpetuate the stupid notion that gun control debates are about: "people believing that guns will become sentient and kill us all."
Even when you disagree with someone (and feel that their argument is invalid or contra-factual) it is neither fair nor reasonable to constantly misrepresent their actual argument.
To put it differently; some of the people who argue against gun-control manage to maintain (at the same time) the dual positions that:

1) Guns aren't dangerous in any meaningful sense of the term, or at least not any more dangerous than anything else.

and

2) Guns are absolutely necessary for self-defence because one would otherwise be helpless (or at a hopeless) disadvantage against criminals and evil government.


Now, I am *not* - I repeat *NOT* - arguing any specific position in regards to gun-control, but it is patently absurd and (IMO) obvious sophistry to maintain the "guns don't kill people" nonsense, when that is not what anyone means to say, and to maintain the "guns aren't more dangerous than other things"-position, when the opponents *exact* point is conceded and agreed upon in the "self defence argument" *against* gun-control.
Make up your minds what it is you actually want to argue, and then argue *that*, instead of this nonsense.

[Damwa]

Next weeks headlines...

"Korea bans all flammable material. All Koreans forced to wear rubber"

Which would you rather wear in the event of a fire?

a) a suit made of cotton

b) a suit made entirely of rubber

[Matriel]

Listen, this issue has been beaten to death and beyond - the people who have read and posted in these threads should know better than to perpetuate the stupid notion that gun control debates are about: "people believing that guns will become sentient and kill us all."
Even when you disagree with someone (and feel that their argument is invalid or contra-factual) it is neither fair nor reasonable to constantly misrepresent their actual argument.
To put it differently; some of the people who argue against gun-control manage to maintain (at the same time) the dual positions that:

1) Guns aren't dangerous in any meaningful sense of the term, or at least not any more dangerous than anything else.

and

2) Guns are absolutely necessary for self-defence because one would otherwise be helpless (or at a hopeless) disadvantage against criminals and evil government.


Now, I am *not* - I repeat *NOT* - arguing any specific position in regards to gun-control, but it is patently absurd and (IMO) obvious sophistry to maintain the "guns don't kill people" nonsense, when that is not what anyone means to say, and to maintain the "guns aren't more dangerous than other things"-position, when the opponents *exact* point is conceded and agreed upon in the "self defence argument" *against* gun-control.
Make up your minds what it is you actually want to argue, and then argue *that*, instead of this nonsense.

If in essence it's the same thing, why does it matter how it's worded?

[Weeking]

Moral of the story: in a game of gun, knife, matches, matches beat knives and guns.

[Damwa]

If in essence it's the same thing, why does it matter how it's worded?

a) It is not in essence the same thing, that is my claim.

b) The actual claim being made by the "gun control"-crowd is *in fact* mirrored in the "self defence argument" of the "pro guns"-crowd.

Some people argue that "guns don't kill people..etc" and then state that guns are essential for self-defence. The point seems to be either ignored, overlooked or deliberately misconstrued that the argument that guns are indispensable for self-defence is based upon the *exact same* premise as the argument that "guns are dangerous". Exploring why this assumption leads to opposite conclusions when incorporated into different outlooks/arguments, is vastly more interesting and more instructive than poking tongues at each other over an interpretation of the opponents position that is entirely fabricated.

[Matriel]

a) It is not in essence the same thing, that is my claim.

b) The actual claim being made by the "gun control"-crowd is *in fact* mirrored in the "self defence argument" of the "pro guns"-crowd.

Some people argue that "guns don't kill people..etc" and then state that guns are essential for self-defence. The point seems to be either ignored, overlooked or deliberately misconstrued that the argument that guns are indispensable for self-defence is based upon the *exact same* premise as the argument that "guns are dangerous". Exploring why this assumption leads to opposite conclusions when incorporated into different outlooks/arguments, is vastly more interesting and more instructive than poking tongues at each other over an interpretation of the opponents position that is entirely fabricated.

It's the same thing imo. Both sentences stress that firearms are tools.

They don't kill people, the tool user kills people.
Guns are great for self-defense because in most cases they are the best tool for the job.

[willithesm]

Kim Kap-shik, chief detective at Seoul's Gangnam Police Station

[Damwa]

It's the same thing imo. Both sentences stress that firearms are tools.

They don't kill people, the tool user kills people.
Guns are great for self-defense because in most cases they are the best tool for the job.

Well, you may not be guilty of the "offense" I am describing, but there are some who like to "construct" the "gun control" position as if it were meant as a claim that guns somehow *compel* people to kill each other, when in fact the claim is the exact same as yours; namely that guns are the best tool for the job (of killing people under certain circumstances).

[ClownFoot]

Which would you rather wear in the event of a fire?

a) a suit made of cotton

b) a suit made entirely of rubber

The cotton hands down. See, when you wear rubber you don't get a good blaze going, all that happens is the rubber melts and burns you. The cotton though, you become a little christmas tree light, and get to spread your burning desire with others. So much better.

[omnigol]

Some people argue that "guns don't kill people..etc" and then state that guns are essential for self-defence. The point seems to be either ignored, overlooked or deliberately misconstrued that the argument that guns are indispensable for self-defence is based upon the *exact same* premise as the argument that "guns are dangerous". Exploring why this assumption leads to opposite conclusions when incorporated into different outlooks/arguments, is vastly more interesting and more instructive than poking tongues at each other over an interpretation of the opponents position that is entirely fabricated.

Something being 'dangerous' is different from something being (lets say) 'lethal'. A job on a drilling rig is dangerous. A bottle of cyanide is lethal if ingested. I could be around a drilling rig and have decent chance of dying. I could be around a bottle of cyanide and never have to worry about it.

To say guns are 'dangerous' attributes a responsibility to them for the deaths they cause rather than the person pulling the trigger.

[tarsus]

If I was a psycho, I think I'd try to be creative in my weapon of choice for mass murdering. Knives and guns are so trendy. Why can't people go around killing people with poisoned blow darts or poke people with a needle that has AIDS or something.

[Damwa]

The cotton hands down. See, when you wear rubber you don't get a good blaze going, all that happens is the rubber melts and burns you. The cotton though, you become a little christmas tree light, and get to spread your burning desire with others. So much better.

Oh, only that?

[Matriel]

Well, you may not be guilty of the "offense" I am describing, but there are some who like to "construct" the "gun control" position as if it were meant as a claim that guns somehow *compel* people to kill each other, when in fact the claim is the exact same as yours; namely that guns are the best tool for the job (of killing people under certain circumstances).

Yes, but I'm not sure how an inanimate object could compel someone to do something. I think that argument is usually made fun of here for being irrational. Usually the people who parrot it, leave when I eat them.

[Damwa]

Something being 'dangerous' is different from something being (lets say) 'lethal'. A job on a drilling rig is dangerous. A bottle of cyanide is lethal if ingested. I could be around a drilling rig and have decent chance of dying. I could be around a bottle of cyanide and never have to worry about it.

To say guns are 'dangerous' attributes a responsibility to them for the deaths they cause rather than the person pulling the trigger.

In which language is this the case? People say that something or other is dangerous *all the time*, without meaning anything remotely similar to what you have stated, and without anyone ever construing it to mean anything along those veins.

And if someone said: "Cyanide is dangerous." would you then begin an argument with him on the premise, that he was implying that cyanide would sneak up on you in your sleep and slide down your throat?

[ClownFoot]

Oh, only that?

Well there is agony and death, but that isn't very important.

[Damwa]

Yes, but I'm not sure how an inanimate object could compel someone to do something. I think that argument is usually made fun of here for being irrational. Usually the people who parrot it, leave when I eat them.

But that is what I am saying: the *only* people claiming that there is an argument "out there" that guns compel people to kill are "pro guns" debaters, who put the argument in the mouths of "gun control" debaters. I don't recall anyone actually arguing for gun control on this premise, per se.

[Damwa]

Well there is agony and death, but that isn't very important.

It is better to *burn out* than to melt away...

[omnigol]

In which language is this the case? People say that something or other is dangerous *all the time*, without meaning anything remotely similar to what you have stated, and without anyone ever construing it to mean anything along those veins.

And if someone said: "Cyanide is dangerous." would you then begin an argument with him on the premise, that he was implying that cyanide would sneak up on you in your sleep and slide down your throat?

You want to argue what most likely (and therefore 'correct') interpretation of a single statement would be without any context, or in the case of a gun control discussion see that I am pointing out that guns are as 'dangerous' as cleaning products, and therefore they're not really dangerous. If multi-step accidents of loading, aiming, and pulling a trigger are a substantial enough risk to merit the banning of fire arms, then countless other items would also need to be banned. I assume gun control advocates know this. And thus I conclude gun control advocates must be attributing firearms a level of danger that is above bleach. And so I say they're giving firearms responsibility for deaths in some way, of the firearms being too much of a risk to have around.

[Hecubis]

The fundamental problem with gun-control is the fact that criminals don't obey the law.

The other problem is that it gives the government a monopoly on firearms, and government has a really bad track record of getting out of control when it no longer needs to fear a revolt.

[Kusghuul]

Giving him a gun would've made things better.

[Damwa]

You want to argue what most likely (and therefore 'correct') interpretation of a single statement would be without any context, or in the case of a gun control discussion see that I am pointing out that guns are as 'dangerous' as cleaning products, and therefore they're not really dangerous. If multi-step accidents of loading, aiming, and pulling a trigger are a substantial enough risk to merit the banning of fire arms, then countless other items would also need to be banned. I assume gun control advocates know this. And thus I conclude gun control advocates must be attributing firearms a level of danger that is above bleach. And so I say they're giving firearms responsibility for deaths in some way, of the firearms being too much of a risk to have around.

Somehow that just made me think of Plato...

[Damwa]

The fundamental problem with gun-control is the fact that criminals don't obey the law.

The other problem is that it gives the government a monopoly on firearms, and government has a really bad track record of getting out of control when it no longer needs to fear a revolt.

I (personally) don't care about that debate right now; all I want to touch upon is the absurdity of saying: "decent citizens need firearms to protect themselves against criminals and evil government" and then turning around and saying: "I don't understand what they mean when they say that guns are dangerous; they must be speaking in tongues..."

Now, most people believe that they have valid arguments and factual support for their opinions. All I am saying is: why not focus on bringing that out, rather than focus on playing linguistic "hide and go seek" with the opponent?

EDIT: I am aware that your post is an example of a "to the point" argument, without the semantics. I am not aiming at you. :)

[Matriel]

But that is what I am saying: the *only* people claiming that there is an argument "out there" that guns compel people to kill are "pro guns" debaters, who put the argument in the mouths of "gun control" debaters. I don't recall anyone actually arguing for gun control on this premise, per se.

I think perhaps you haven't read many of these threads. Or if you want, just go to the Brady Campaign website.

Plenty of people use this argument in some fashion. Be it directly or indirectly.