I've thought about it and alas, my conclusion still remains intact; what a ludicrous comparison. We were debating gun control laws in America a few weeks ago at my school and honestly, some of the pseudo-cynical-metaphorical arguments put forward were ridiculous. If I had to choose, I'd say that the apex on the mound of stupidity was reached when someone tried lifting a desk to "prove a point" as apparently, desks are tantamount to guns in terms of danger to humans.

Obviously an outright ban on guns is far-fetched and extreme, but why not increase gun regulation just a tiny bit? A video popped up on Youtube the other day in which a bloke literally got handed a gun after buying something innocuous, like a pair of trainers and yet
there are still those who genuinely believe that gun control wouldn't be a preventive measure.

Im kind of on the fence about the whole gun thing so push me either way. But arguments like this are completely invalid. Pro gun people are always like "YEAH WELL PEOPLE WILL USE ROCKS AND CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO" yeah but those things werent built for the specific function of killing. Anything built for the job will perform said job to a certainly higher standard than something that isnt.

thats actually an interesting perspective, except there is no downside to fire extinguishers, but there is for guns

fire hydrants can't be used to START fires. they only put them out.
in contrast, guns can be used for self-defense, but they can also be used for the very crimes that they are said to protect against.

If guns only worked in self-defense situations, there'd be no school shootings or gun-related crimes, and no one would have a problem with guns anymore. unfortunately, that is not the case, and ********* and psychopaths can use guns to commit crimes. However, while a criminal could kill with a gun, an arsonist couldn't start a fire with a fire extinguisher. Therefore, the fire hydrant comparison is flawed.

none are made for killing, but saving lives. Not the same man.

all our lives we have ben told that a gun has to be used to killsomeone/ protect someone. Why the **** can't we just embrace a decent piece of mechanical technology?

Guns are used for saving lives, too.

but made for killing.

so?

made for saving lives by taking them

Kill or be killed, basic rule of survival. Are you going to allow your opponent the upper hand by refusing to own a handgun while they come with a rifle? Sure, lemme just cock my bow and arrow- ooooh... I've been shot in a literal fraction of the time it would take to retaliate.

I'd say something but i like comment 97

Trust me, if there were a more reliable, non-lethal way of stopping an attacker, the vast majority of people would be all over it. Until then, Tasers are one-shot items, stun-guns require you to be in bludgeoning/raping distance, and if you're being attacked, odds are the attacker feels they're capable of taking you on, so forget hand-to-hand combat.

Rubber bullets, bean bags, etc....

Those are crowd-control measures, not self-defense measures. If you can find me evidence that people have reliably stopped attackers (particularly the sufficiently enraged, determined, or drug-fueled variety) with bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets, I may reconsider my previous point.

Well, sometimes.
It's not always necessary to fire a gun in order to defend yourself, since pointing a gun at the guy or even having a gun in your possession is enough to deter many criminals. Hell, even the knowledge that many people in your area (not you specifically) are armed is enough to serve as a deterrent.
Even if you do fire it, there's no guarantee that you'll kill your target, and you probably don't need to. If the guy is mugging you with a knife, shoot him in the leg and you can run away without killing him.

Even if self-defense does result in the death of the attacker, there's such a thing as justifiable homicide.

Not necessarily. People can brandish a gun and instantly the attacker will run for their lives. Its only when the person is going to be attacked that it is kinda required to defend themselves and shoot the attacker.

That's the ideal situation, but not everyone runs. If you present arms, you have to be ready to pull the trigger. The moment you draw, you're bluffing. What will you do if they call your bluff?

Thats a good point, that is why people need to train before even buying a weapon.

Since i have shot weapons, and have taken courses, i would know that even shooting the ground in front of their feet would be enough to break their determinedness and make them run, but if i really had to shoot THEM, it would be in the lower leg/arm. Nothing to kill them, but to definitely wing them.

The sad part is, some prosecutes will try to charge you with stupid charges like torture, and the criminal could sue you. I think it is better now, but a few years ago in Tucson you shoot to kill or face to consequences.

Because fire extingushers cannot be used to kill people at range.

Exactly. What he's saying is he'd rather just shoot or scare away the mugger/burglar/rapist/etc and avoid being victimized than wait for the police to show up.

Ive seen many stupid comments on FJ in my time...but you have reached a new level of dumb

So....... whens the last time a school got attacked by a dude with fire extinguishers?

inb4 red thumbs, I dont really care about gun control. Just had to point out a flaw.

The pic only refutes the foolish argument that if you don't need it, ban it. Of course, they are very much needed, as has been iterated countless ways in the comments.

You've picked one up before, right? Those things are excellent bludgeons.

But its not common for people to even consider using them for other than... Say... Self-defence. People just don't think about them that much otherwise.

I just thought of it, and I'm perfectly sane.

We're discussing the topic. Of COURSE you thought of it.

And of 7 billion people in the world, I can't be the only one who thought "You see that big, heavy red canister? I bet it'd be an excellent bludgeon."

I've thought about kicking an old lady into a pond with the ducks she's feeding. Doesn't mean that I'm thinking about such things on a daily basis, nor does it mean that I'm crazy.

Nor does it mean I'm crazy. I mean, I'm sane.

But what of the insane ones who act on these thoughts? I be a few old ladies have been kicked into duck ponds over the years.

Doesn't mean that it was insane people that did it either. If the answer to the original question was if only insane people would use a fire-extinguisher as a bludgeoning-tool then no. But the average person don't go looking for his/her fire-extinguisher when he/she hears a burglar. They COULD take it, but if they find something else, say... A frying pan first, then they'd use that instead.

And crazy people don't always kill people with common household objects. Some do, some wild and irresponsible people also do, but no typical group of people.

And why would they choose a frying pan over a fire extinguisher? Frying pans are awkward.

They have a handle. That's why the 'common man/woman' would think 'hey, I'll use this as a weapon!' But my point is that people would use if if they saw it when they felt threatened.

It's an analogy ya dingus

I understand that.... but guns and fire extinguishers aren't really interchangeable...

Yeah they are. Who needs guns, when the police will arrive after everyone's been shot by a criminal owning an illegally possessed gun?