Solus wrote

002 wrote

Solus wrote

C4s wrote

Innx wrote Bin them all guns are bad in every way

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I'm not pro-banning guns but that's quite a bad analogy.

When you're analogizing objects they have to be similar in function.
When a police officer responds to a crime worthy of a lethal reaction, they use a gun.
When a fireman is responding to a fire they show up with fire extinguishers but if this was an analogous situation with the police response it would be a much more serious fire, so they show up with a fire truck.

If this analogy were accurate it would say be saying that every person should own a fire truck.
Also, when was the last time someone committed a mass murder with a fire extinguisher?

Once again, i'm not pro-banning guns, but I have yet to see an analogy between guns and something else essential which makes sense.

People in the US need guns for various reasons, hunting, protection, and fun, being the main ones.
They should have access to these weapons if they want them, but they should also have to go through strict training, background checks, mental health evaluations and safety classes to get them, maybe including mandatory safe installment.
And yes, I know that the laws are already very strict but in my opinion it should be as difficult to get a gun license as it is to get a pilot's license.

Any law abiding US citizen who wants a gun should have no problem with this, and if they actually care about guns they should want people to know how to use them so that the stigma is removed from gun owners.

The analogy is saying if we don't need guns because we have police, then we don't need fire extinguishers because we have firefighters. It literally has nothing to do with a fire truck, yeah firefighters use fire trucks, just like cops use police cars. Just putting it out there.

The fire truck has the hose. That is what they use when it is a serious fire. Just like the police use their guns when it is a serious situation.

A fire extinguisher would be more analogous with a taser or pepper spray. It's a smaller response for a smaller issue.

I understood what the analogy was saying, i'm saying it's not an accurate analogy.

Edit: I don't want to drown this thread bickering over the accuracy of an analogy so let me try to make it as clear as I can here. If this doesn't convince you then nothing I say will.

If the police are responding to a situation where it would be lawful for any gun owner to shoot the person committing the crime, it would also be lawful for the police to shoot the person committing the crime.
Use of deadly force by a gun is the most extreme thing a regular police officer can do.

The most extreme thing a fireman can do is not to run up to a burning building and begin spraying it with a fire extinguisher. The most extreme thing a regular fireman can do is man the hose from his fire truck and begin spraying high pressure water or foam over the building.

These are the most extreme situations a police officer or a fireman can find themselves in

Therefore, a gun is not analogous with a fire extinguisher. A gun is analogous with a fire truck.
Pepper spray or a taser would be more analogous with a fire extinguisher because the situation is obviously less severe. An assailant without a gun, a fire without a building.

That's as clearly as I can put this I think.

You're looking at the tools the people use, not the people used in the analogy...

The analogy is guns are supposed to be replaced by a police officer, and fire extinguishers are supposed to be replaced with firefighters. We're replacing a tool with a forcer (police force, etc.) what that force uses has nothing to do with the analogy.

The police have pepper spray, guns, handcuffs, radios, etc. You're picking a tool, when you do that that's saying that we're replacing guns with radios because cops have radios when the analogy said we're replacing guns with cops. Stop looking at the tools that the force uses.

I don't think you understand that the analogy is trying to get people to see a different light. People are saying we have police officers so there is no need for a gun for personal protection. This gets people in a riot so what the analogy was trying to do was re-surface it in a different light with two other ideas in that we have firefighters so we don't need fire extinguishers.

Again, the analogy is aimed towards those saying we need to take away a tool because there is a human presence that uses that tool to protect us, so we as citizens don't need it. It literally has nothing to do with the tools that the other human presence uses. Nothing.

I can't stand someone that have no knowledge of guns; let alone ever shot one says to put a ban on guns. Like you said that's not the answer, a gun doesn't unlock itself from it's safe walk down the street shooting people. I think that it's a great idea to have a more in depth screening process (already pretty in depth) to purchase a firearm would be ideal. Not sure if you guys are aware of the Orlando shooting recently, but the shooter was on the United States "No Fly" list. He can not fly on our country's planes, but has no problem buying MULTIPLE guns and doing his horrendous attack. I'm not blaming the gun store that sold him the guns, but there should be more regulations however not an overall ban. I think we're pointing fingers at the guns which is like pointing fingers at the candy the fat kid eats. The guns (candy) are just the choice of weapon to criminals, if you took their "candy" they'd just get "cupcakes" (knives, etc.).

3PT wrote Guns are great for personal protection. A pistol to carry with you and a shotgun for the house is all a person needs imo. If you have a hunting license or work for private security, then you would probably want something more than a pistol or shotgun. People say they own those weapons for self defense, but does it really make sense? When someone breaks into your home, would you grab your AR-15 or your 12 gauge? You would probably grab the 12 gauge. As many people already know, you don't even need to shoot with accuracy for a shotgun to be effective in close quarters.

My point is that people should be free to get guns that they might actually need. If you need an AR-15 to hunt, then you should be free to go out and purchase one. If not, then there is no reason for you to have one imo.

Wrong. I've never liked shotguns. If someone was in my home I'd rather have an AR15. I'd feel a lot safer with that.

some nice firearms you have their buddy. Agree with you on all of you're points.

Thank you for teaching me about guns. I learned more in this topic than i ever have in my life.

Here in the UK guns are illegal and I for one am happy about that, the thought that anyone could gain access to a gun scares me, yes personal protection might be needed but i just don't think guns should be openly available for anyone.


Thanks for creating such a mature post and allowing others to learn about these weapons!

My opinion on guns;
They don't need to be banned, but it should be harder to get one. It's way to easy to get a gun now days.
And why do you need them anyways? Can't you fight with bare hands or what?

killerboy53 wrote My opinion on guns;
They don't need to be banned, but it should be harder to get one. It's way to easy to get a gun now days.
And why do you need them anyways? Can't you fight with bare hands or what?

who the hell uses a gun for normal fighting?
Because yes if some huge dude with a gun, or knife, or even only his hands, is trying to kill you... Your logic is just fight with your hands?
While a larger guy might be able to handle a fight with a large guy, a smaller guy couldn't. That's where the escalation of force is justified.

Nice guns man. I wish I could have some but its not allowed in uk :/

I carry knifes but thats still illegal :/:/

Illustrated wrote

killerboy53 wrote My opinion on guns;
They don't need to be banned, but it should be harder to get one. It's way to easy to get a gun now days.
And why do you need them anyways? Can't you fight with bare hands or what?

who the hell uses a gun for normal fighting?
Because yes if some huge dude with a gun, or knife, or even only his hands, is trying to kill you... Your logic is just fight with your hands?
While a larger guy might be able to handle a fight with a large guy, a smaller guy couldn't. That's where the escalation of force is justified.

Ever heard of martial arts or defense sports?

The only thing were I can defend my self with here in Germany is this, wish I would have the legal ability to own fire-arms. I was already on a shooting range and it turned out I'm not bad with accuracy. But since a stupid idiot went to a school schooting couple of years ago, it's almost impossible to own a legal fire-arm here.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]