Report: ‘At Least Seven’ NFL Players Turn In Guns In Wake Of Belcher Tragedy

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by jrowe

It's not a gun problem. It's a gangsta culture problem.

I'm not seeing where that fits in here..

[Garcia Bronco]

Turned in to who? The NFL? The team? I hope not.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Turned in to who? The NFL? The team? I hope not.

Looks like the team:

“I’ve been told that in the last seven days, at least seven players around the league have gone to their team’s security officers to turn in the firearms that they possess from their homes,” King said during the broadcast.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Looks like the team:

I mean at least sell it. Its their property, but it seems strange.

[Psyko Tek]

so the but the guns and cars to be the cool kids?
if you are in the NFL you are the cool kid
quit this gotta fit in shit, you should be setting the trends

weak minded morans

[WhiteWhale]

Okay, I'm a big second amendment guy, but the dumbest argument ever used in favor of guns keeps being used here.

I'll say this once.

Automobiles were invented for the purpose of transporting people from one place to another.

Guns were invented for the explicit purpose of killing human beings. They weren't invented to hunt animals. They weren't invented for shooting pop cans and targets. They were invented for a very specific purpose... killing people in war.

While I support the 2nd amendment, I don't support stupidity like comparing Cars and guns. One is not like the other.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Okay, I'm a big second amendment guy, but the dumbest argument ever used in favor of guns keeps being used here.

I'll say this once.

Automobiles were invented for the purpose of transporting people from one place to another.

Guns were invented for the explicit purpose of killing human beings. They weren't invented to hunt animals. They weren't invented for shooting pop cans and targets. They were invented for a very specific purpose... killing people in war.

While I support the 2nd amendment, I don't support stupidity like comparing Cars and guns. One is not like the other.

I agree. I think the commonality is when those items are abused. It is impossible for a gun to kill by itself. It's impossible for a car to have an accident by itself. The argument is not so much comparing guns to cars as it is an illustration of lack of personal responsibility. Blame the gun not the person animating it is as stupid as blaming the car not the driver. See what I mean?

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Okay, I'm a big second amendment guy, but the dumbest argument ever used in favor of guns keeps being used here.

I'll say this once.

Automobiles were invented for the purpose of transporting people from one place to another.

Guns were invented for the explicit purpose of killing human beings. They weren't invented to hunt animals. They weren't invented for shooting pop cans and targets. They were invented for a very specific purpose... killing people in war.

While I support the 2nd amendment, I don't support stupidity like comparing Cars and guns. One is not like the other.

So here's one flaw with your argument, jet aircraft were invented by the Germans in WWII for the explicit purpose of establishing air superiority and taking out as many US bombers as possible. Almost all modern rocketry in the western world can trace it's origin directly to the V-2 rocket program established by Germany in WWII.

Should both jet aircraft and all modern space/satellite programs be 'tainted' as bad because their origins were as weapons of war? Why something was created should be irrelevant, how it is used should be how we judge it.

The problem is you missed the point of the original argument. The argument wasn't about cars or guns. It was about being unbiased and about uniform standards. We like to be discriminatory, it's a survival instinct and it's in the DNA of all life. What we have to actively work at doing is trying to be as unbaised as we can. Treating firearms more harshly than other objects that also have the potential to cause harm is discriminatory. If you want to restrict something fine, set a uniform unbiased standard to measure harm and then restrict EVERYTHING that meets that standard.

The reality is the vast majority of all firearms are used perfectly legally and without harm to their fellow human beings and yet many people want to prohibit them for everyone based upon the bad actions of a minority just because they personally do not like them.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

So here's one flaw with your argument, jet aircraft were invented by the Germans in WWII for the explicit purpose of establishing air superiority and taking out as many US bombers as possible. Almost all modern rocketry in the western world can trace it's origin directly to the V-2 rocket program established by Germany in WWII.

That's valid. It's a more reasonable comparison than an automobile, which was designed for transportation.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

Should both jet aircraft and all modern space/satellite programs be 'tainted' as bad because their origins were as weapons of war? Why something was created should be irrelevant, how it is used should be how we judge it.

Indeed, but can you tell me what use guns serve outside of either killing something or using it to intimidate with the threat of killing? I'm not saying it's tainted. I'm saying people seem to be intellectually dishonest about what they're for. Guns are not a tool like a shovel. They do not have the potential to cause harm... that's pretty much the only thing they can do. It's the sole purpose of their design. You can dig with a shovel. You can drive a car. You can only shoot a gun at things.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The problem is you missed the point of the original argument. The argument wasn't about cars or guns. It was about being unbiased and about uniform standards. We like to be discriminatory, it's a survival instinct and it's in the DNA of all life. What we have to actively work at doing is trying to be as unbaised as we can. Treating firearms more harshly than other objects that also have the potential to cause harm is discriminatory. If you want to restrict something fine, set a uniform unbiased standard to measure harm and then restrict EVERYTHING that meets that standard.

That's valid. I agree with the core argument, but the analogy is weak sauce. I liked the space program comparison much better. War is the mother of invention and most of the things we enjoy today were in fact created, at least in part, to kill people. Even this thing I'm typing on right now owes it's roots to violent warfare.

I can't log onto the internet with a gun. It's only use is violence or the deterrence of violence with the threat of violence. That is the difference between guns and basically everything else. It's important and should be acknowledged by gun owners. The point I'm trying to make is that guns haven't really expanded in their use. They're used to kill people/animals or threaten to kill people with.. and for most people that's simply a means to protect yourself and your property from any number of potential threats.

They have no other use. It's an important use who's viability has expanded beyond the battlefield, but it's still not a car.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The reality is the vast majority of all firearms are used perfectly legally and without harm to their fellow human beings and yet many people want to prohibit them for everyone based upon the bad actions of a minority just because they personally do not like them.

Again, I agree entirely with this. I support the 2nd amendment myself and I am a gun owner. I have never used my gun to kill anything, but one day I may have to in order to survive. That's the only reason I own it and have trained to use it, all while I pray I never have to use it on a living thing. I'm also thinking of getting a conceal and carry permit after this drunk weirdo freaked out on me at Quiktrip.

Now I know they can be used for Hunting, and I don't condemn that either. It is a violence and killing though. People use guns for it because guns are really awesome at killing things. I wish there were no guns in the world, but if the bad guys have guns so will I.

[notorious]

Good for them, but if I am the GM or owner I would keep a close eye on those guys. They must have had a close call to scare them that much.

[Bwana]

Well now, if any more of these guys, or anyone else feels like giving away guns, you drop your pal Bwana a PM and you can send them on up here. I'll take good care of them.

[Bwana]

On a side note, this warms my heart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...b4e_story.html

Congrats Tim

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Bwana

On a side note, this warms my heart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...b4e_story.html

Congrats Tim

WOO HOO

[CrazyPhuD]

Then there is the proverbial lunacy that is the push for an 'assault' weapon ban. Under 3% of all murders are caused by rifles of all types(included those that would not be classified as 'assault' weapons). By prohibiting ALL rifles the absolute most impact you can have is a 3% reduction in the murder rate.....

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11

I am assuming that people aren't suggesting that 'assault' weapons are chosen for suicides because they believe them more effective killing machines.

Hell the rate of people killed by hands, fists, etc is 2X those killed with rifles. If we are using the standard of banning things that are perceived to make killing more effective, why do we not then ban all forms of martial arts, wrestling and boxing. Since they clearly make someone a better hand to hand combatant and the problem is 2X as severe as all rifle murders.

[CoMoChief]

Guns have NEVER killed people on their own.

They can not pull their own trigger.