What a great idea, make a real assault rifle look like a toy weapon instead of the toy looking real. Great for impromptu bank robberies and concealment.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is absolute rubbish. I've seen arguments comparing to car fatalities or other problems to gun related incidents - that's bulls**t.
The primary design goal of a gun is its lethality, to kill. A Car (or other object) generally aren't designed with the goal of taking lives away. The intention of a particular object has much to do with how widespread it should be.
The problem with guns is that it make it SO easy for people to take lives. The Vtech shooting is clear. One guy took out so many folks so quickly and easily. Hell, if you permit such guns, why stop at guns? Why not allow rocket launchers, grenades, bombs, nerve gas or even sub-kiloton atomic bombs?? Lets start a civilian arms race!
You could try to argue at the other end and say "Whatever, then we should also ban knives and that is dumb". Well, knives (like guns) are banned in several places, but more importantly, knives aren't as devastating or deadly as guns. And you can't cut food with a gun, whereas a knife is essential for cooking (the primary design goal, remember?)
Guns, like other lethal military equipment, should be only with the military, police and other government controlled institutes. The only justification I can see is during a civil war, against a despotic government.
"Guns, like other lethal military equipment, should be only with the military, police and other government controlled institutes. The only justification I can see is during a civil war, against a despotic government."
Soo.... if the despotic government's military and police have all the lethal military equipment... wouldn't that be a pretty short civil war?
Jason, TK, that's a very smart argument. You guys should quit inbreeding ya know.
HahnHG, that's a short sighted conclusion on your part. If you're competing with the army, navy, air forces and marines, you REALLY think your firearms will give you the edge over their ammunition, guns, vehicles, aircrafts, helicopters? Not even a CHANCE! What you are alluding to, is that the civilians need to have an arms race against their own government (not a foreign threat!), JUST in case the government goes bad. Hell, we better start taking bids for our own anti aircraft guns during the next neighborhood watch meeting ...
Please study most successful civil wars against established empires/governments. NONE have been successful without foreign influence or foreign support (i.e. allies). I'm surprised you didn't notice this since in recent history, there have been several examples of just that.
There is no point in arguing on hypothetical when examples from the real world are very clear. Look for gun violence in the US and the impact of civilian gun control laws during modern (i.e. not 18th century) civil wars.
In the end, we all want laws that safeguard civilians, without personal agendas of "pro-gun" or "anti-gun". Its just that by reason, "pro-gun" poses more risk than the rewards it promises.
Also, the handful of "pro-gun" folks are rating down every "anti-gun" post in this thread, so I'm not surprised about the rating trend for this post.
Anyway, this is engadget, so I'll let this rest and move on with the gadget news ...
First of I wish people like TK and Jason Kennemer would keep their ignorant mouths shut. They do nothing to help their (our) cause.
Second: @siddharth s
"The Vtech shooting is clear. One guy took out so many folks so quickly and easily."
If you could make the technology just go away you might have a point, but it's too late at this point. If only one of the Virginia Tech victims had a gun to protect themselves the tragedy could have been eliminated or at least mitigated. Virginia Tech has a policy against students carrying handguns (even if they have gone through the training and permitting process to legally concealed carry in Virginia). Notice how this did not stop Cho from carrying a gun on campus, but did prevent any law abiding citizen and student from protecting herself. It's surprising how may of these mass shootings occur in "Gun free zones" like the mall shooting in Omaha. All that a "gun free zone" does is let a criminal know that he will be uncontested and unequaled in fire power at least until the authorities arrive.
"HahnHG, that's a short sighted conclusion on your part. If you're competing with the army, navy, air forces and marines, you REALLY think your firearms will give you the edge over their ammunition, guns, vehicles, aircrafts, helicopters? "
Good point. One only has to look at our overwhelming success of The United states over the under manned, under armed and under trained insurgency in Iraq as well as Russia's success in Afghanistan in the 80's to see the truth in that point.
"Please study most successful civil wars against established empires/governments. NONE have been successful without foreign influence or foreign support (i.e. allies). "
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the Cuban Revolution and Castro's overthrow of the Batista regime started with a very small group of rebel forces. Well under 100 men from the outset if my memory serves me.
"Guns, like other lethal military equipment, should be only with the military, police and other government controlled institutes. The only justification I can see is during a civil war, against a despotic government."
Is that really the *only* reason? Wow! you *are* and extremist. Even the Brady Campaign wouldn't take hunters rifles away from them. There may not be many where you or I come from, but there are plenty of less fortunate people out there who rely on their guns to put food on their tables and to feed their families.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Veronica is average @ Jan 17th 2008 2:25PM
What a great idea, make a real assault rifle look like a toy weapon instead of the toy looking real. Great for impromptu bank robberies and concealment.
jroc @ Jan 17th 2008 3:17PM
I'll be waiting for the powerfuff girls version to come out.
jroc @ Jan 17th 2008 3:18PM
I'll be waiting for the powerpuff girls version to come out.
Andir3.0 @ Jan 17th 2008 3:19PM
It takes a person to rob a bank, steal something or kill someone. A gun will never do this alone. I hope. I just wanted to put that out front.
aoeu00 @ Jan 17th 2008 3:29PM
Guns don't kill people! People kill people! But people use guns to kill people! /confused :P
ldrn @ Jan 17th 2008 3:34PM
Ok, maybe it does usually take a person.
But that gun's so cute that if it DID come to life and rob a bank and so on, we'd just have to forgive it and give it hugs.
MEAT! @ Jan 17th 2008 3:36PM
I thought the point of bringing a gun to a bank robbery was to let everyone know that you have a gun.
Manuel @ Jan 17th 2008 4:44PM
Guns don't kill people! Hello Kitty kills people
travis @ Jan 17th 2008 4:56PM
how in the world could someone do that to a gun....that is like the biggest sin in the gun world
siddharth s @ Jan 17th 2008 7:18PM
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is absolute rubbish. I've seen arguments comparing to car fatalities or other problems to gun related incidents - that's bulls**t.
The primary design goal of a gun is its lethality, to kill. A Car (or other object) generally aren't designed with the goal of taking lives away. The intention of a particular object has much to do with how widespread it should be.
The problem with guns is that it make it SO easy for people to take lives. The Vtech shooting is clear. One guy took out so many folks so quickly and easily. Hell, if you permit such guns, why stop at guns? Why not allow rocket launchers, grenades, bombs, nerve gas or even sub-kiloton atomic bombs?? Lets start a civilian arms race!
You could try to argue at the other end and say "Whatever, then we should also ban knives and that is dumb". Well, knives (like guns) are banned in several places, but more importantly, knives aren't as devastating or deadly as guns. And you can't cut food with a gun, whereas a knife is essential for cooking (the primary design goal, remember?)
Guns, like other lethal military equipment, should be only with the military, police and other government controlled institutes. The only justification I can see is during a civil war, against a despotic government.
HahnWG @ Jan 17th 2008 8:08PM
siddharth s @ Jan 17th 2008 7:18PM
"Guns, like other lethal military equipment, should be only with the military, police and other government controlled institutes. The only justification I can see is during a civil war, against a despotic government."
Soo.... if the despotic government's military and police have all the lethal military equipment... wouldn't that be a pretty short civil war?
Jason Kennemer @ Jan 17th 2008 10:47PM
Sid,
Go find another country to live in.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
TK @ Jan 17th 2008 10:46PM
Sid,
Go live in another country, you've just lost your right to live in this one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
siddharth s @ Jan 18th 2008 4:33PM
Jason, TK, that's a very smart argument. You guys should quit inbreeding ya know.
HahnHG, that's a short sighted conclusion on your part. If you're competing with the army, navy, air forces and marines, you REALLY think your firearms will give you the edge over their ammunition, guns, vehicles, aircrafts, helicopters? Not even a CHANCE! What you are alluding to, is that the civilians need to have an arms race against their own government (not a foreign threat!), JUST in case the government goes bad. Hell, we better start taking bids for our own anti aircraft guns during the next neighborhood watch meeting ...
Please study most successful civil wars against established empires/governments. NONE have been successful without foreign influence or foreign support (i.e. allies). I'm surprised you didn't notice this since in recent history, there have been several examples of just that.
There is no point in arguing on hypothetical when examples from the real world are very clear. Look for gun violence in the US and the impact of civilian gun control laws during modern (i.e. not 18th century) civil wars.
In the end, we all want laws that safeguard civilians, without personal agendas of "pro-gun" or "anti-gun". Its just that by reason, "pro-gun" poses more risk than the rewards it promises.
Also, the handful of "pro-gun" folks are rating down every "anti-gun" post in this thread, so I'm not surprised about the rating trend for this post.
Anyway, this is engadget, so I'll let this rest and move on with the gadget news ...
caleb @ Jan 19th 2008 1:47PM
First of I wish people like TK and Jason Kennemer would keep their ignorant mouths shut. They do nothing to help their (our) cause.
Second:
@siddharth s
"The Vtech shooting is clear. One guy took out so many folks so quickly and easily."
If you could make the technology just go away you might have a point, but it's too late at this point. If only one of the Virginia Tech victims had a gun to protect themselves the tragedy could have been eliminated or at least mitigated. Virginia Tech has a policy against students carrying handguns (even if they have gone through the training and permitting process to legally concealed carry in Virginia). Notice how this did not stop Cho from carrying a gun on campus, but did prevent any law abiding citizen and student from protecting herself. It's surprising how may of these mass shootings occur in "Gun free zones" like the mall shooting in Omaha. All that a "gun free zone" does is let a criminal know that he will be uncontested and unequaled in fire power at least until the authorities arrive.
"HahnHG, that's a short sighted conclusion on your part. If you're competing with the army, navy, air forces and marines, you REALLY think your firearms will give you the edge over their ammunition, guns, vehicles, aircrafts, helicopters? "
Good point. One only has to look at our overwhelming success of The United states over the under manned, under armed and under trained insurgency in Iraq as well as Russia's success in Afghanistan in the 80's to see the truth in that point.
"Please study most successful civil wars against established empires/governments. NONE have been successful without foreign influence or foreign support (i.e. allies). "
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the Cuban Revolution and Castro's overthrow of the Batista regime started with a very small group of rebel forces. Well under 100 men from the outset if my memory serves me.
"Guns, like other lethal military equipment, should be only with the military, police and other government controlled institutes. The only justification I can see is during a civil war, against a despotic government."
Is that really the *only* reason? Wow! you *are* and extremist. Even the Brady Campaign wouldn't take hunters rifles away from them. There may not be many where you or I come from, but there are plenty of less fortunate people out there who rely on their guns to put food on their tables and to feed their families.
stantla @ Feb 15th 2008 2:14AM
guns dont kill people........but the sure do help