Issue of the day - Where do YOU stand on the issue of "Gun Control" and why?

[lander]

Phadeus,

Kant was a moron. If you took offence to my tone, I apologise, but you were citing a specious and to some extent incorrect assertion in support of your position.

I only chose Kant because of his mastery of "talking in circles". Kant was hardly a moron, but regardless - that is not the issue.

But, since we're into the semantics of Philosophy 101 here I'm not particularly sure I was making an incorrect assertion as I didn't say that "ALL British cops don't carry guns". Nor did I qualify it with "some", "none", or any other qualifying amount ...
... and furthermore, it was never intended to be considered as logical proof that you falsely assumed it to be.
I was merely making a point.

Overall, yes. As a percentage of violent crimes involving guns, no. And if I am 100% incorrect on the matter, what does this have to do with the British gun thing?
It has nothing to do with the British gun thing, but I thought you'd appreciate my annontation of the first semi-incorrect statement you made regardless of the point behind the statement - you know, for "consistantcy".

Well again, I'm sorry if you took offence, but you certainly wasted no time lashing back rather than addressing the argument. You're the one who started the topic and invited respones -- surely you did not just mean those which agree with your position and do not mind the odd skewed 'fact' thrown in.
Precisely - I invited "responses" amongst other things, however your reply was only a quasi-rebuttal, at most.

Regardless, I actually enjoy & read 95%+ of your opinions/deductions .... I was just taken for a bit of a loop by you playing the "semantics card".

Out of curiosity, why did you opt for this (Br. var) spelling - "apologise"? I often do the same, but out of habit - I worked for a British software consultancy for a few years.

 

[JackDee]

"Should we ban doctors? Many more die from doctors accidentally killing people than firearm accidents."

you are once again right on the money here prof. outandup. What you obviously missed here is that while doctors kill in the process of healing or curing or operating, firearms kill in the process of wanting to kill, or threaten, or wound.

I suppose it's hard to take the gun out of a southern, what with the southern tradition of gun ownership, slave colonies and gutless macho-ism.

 

[outandup]

shit for brains,
"firearms kill in the process of wanting to kill", so let me get this straight a firearm can actually want something. jacdichead for poster of the week.

are you really that fukin stupid? how can a firearm do anything on it owns? wouldn't it take a person to actually kill? the same way a person could kill with many other items.

 

[JackDee]

i said:

"What you obviously missed here is that while doctors kill in the process of healing or curing or operating, firearms kill in the process of wanting to kill, or threaten, or wound."

you replied.

"shit for brains,
"firearms kill in the process of wanting to kill", so let me get this straight a firearm can actually want something. jacdichead for poster of the week.

are you really that fukin stupid? how can a firearm do anything on it owns? wouldn't it take a person to actually kill? the same way a person could kill with many other items."

You are right, i am "really that fukin stupid", i thought guns had a will of their own, that's exactly what i meant, i was wrong, it does take a person to kill, guns cant do it all by themselves. You are a scholar and a rhetorician outandup, you got me.

And guns, well, they work exactly the same way as with "many an other item", actually other items kill much more effectively, i read that the feds are thinking of replacing their automatics with paper clippers, pocket knifes and really big bulky vases, and i heard the u.s. marines are considering scraping their bazooka's for papua new guinea hand made bows and arrows and some mean sharp stones.

Like i said, you are right as per usual, and under no circumstances can someone consider you thick, uneducated or ignorant.

 

[outandup]

Do you acknowledge a gun is harmless without the act of a person?

Lets try this, is a knife harmless without the act of a person?

Is a vehicle harmless without the act of a person. Get it now ass.

 

[lander]

"Do you acknowledge a gun is harmless without the act of a person?"

Absolutely not. A gun is harmless if a child gets ahold of it too. Yes, I obviously realize that a child is a human, but I want to make the distinction here ... a child most surely would NEVER have access to a gun without taking his parent's gun. Accidents happen - got it?

And for those who think we need guns to protect ourselves from the government - look how quickly we blew Baghdad to bits ... the same could happen anywhere, regardless if the residents own a shotgun or a pistol.

And what about young adults? What about Columbine? What about the kids in Jersey last week? Did they have gun permits? No, but their parents did.

 

[lander]

Out, Hand Gernades & MOAB's don't kill people.
People with Hand Gernades and MOABs kill people.

Why don't we just start giving out permits for these too? According to you, the weapons aren't dangerous.

 

[lander]

double post.

 

[outandup]

Lander,
Although all gun accidents are a tragedy, there are very few compared to the guns that are out there. Don't you believe we should have the right to have a gun in our home to protect our family from the elements that are out there.

I would venture to guess there have been more home invasion than accidental gun deaths.

 

[outandup]

Most of these actors that are for gun control have armed body guards with them all the time. What gives?

 

[corey]

Gun owners who die in shootings are most likely to be killed with their own gun.

I own, but I support moderation. No need for a glock. Everybody knows the shotgun is the best defence weapon available. What good is an AK-47 - none. People shouldn't have them.

A point missing here seems to be that CONTROL does NOT equal TOTAL BAN.

 

[KMAN]

Guns in your own home should be allowed however you shouldn't be allowed to take them off of your property.

Each American should have a right to defend their family against thugs who don't value other person's property. I'm down with OPP but not in this case.

KMAN

 

[KMAN]

I have a great idea. Why can't those who are in favor of guns keep em and those not in favor don't. That way everyone is happy!

KMAN

 

[Jointpleasure]

I consider it a terrible tragedy when a child finds his parents gun in his home and accidently shoots himself or someone else with it, all assuming that the child is not aware of what a gun can do. I see two methods of helping to prevent this unfortunate occurrence.
The first would be to offer a gun safety class to parents which I believe most states already do. The second is to prevent stupid people from having kids. I have pistols, rifles and shotguns and would love to have an AK47. I shoot at least 10,000 rounds a year out in the country in good old northern Minnesota and it would double if a could roll around on the ground playing army man shooting bottles, cans and paper targets wtih that AK47. Wet dream.

 

[GringoinCR]

You only see the negative press about guns. That is the only thing that gets published. It's isn't news unless something bad happens.

I don't know how many time I've been talking with friends or family members about guns. They are going off about how unsafe they are, the people that carry them are crazy. The whole time they have no idea I have a glock on me.

That's the way it should be. People should not know you're armed. 99% of the people that are armed, you never see it or hear about it. So you can only judge by the small percentage of negative publicy that is out there.

 

[JackDee]

kman, long time no see.

i wish i d been longer, but since you are back... can you please leave.

outandup,

it's useless to talk to you man, if i got to spend even a minute of my spare time replying to you, like talking sense to 10 year old ignorant, not that bright kid, you gotta pay me.

 

[radiofreecostarica]

Someone once said that the only reason Americans are still allowed to have guns is because they have never revolted against their govt...

Makes sense to me.

 

[corey]

City folks should not have guns. It is just a power play. Ask the Shrink this:

Guns are security for insecure personalities. A feeling of power in a life that otherwise feels an inability to control.

Most city folk who own a gun wouldn't know how to shoot the broad side of a barn with a shotgun.

Country folk excepted.

 

[KMAN]

JackDee - What's up with that? I'm trying to have a civil conversation.

What's the problem?

KMAN

 

[radiofreecostarica]

Here's my dilemma:

I don't see any reason that guns should be illegal.

But aside from protection against the state, I don't see any reason that they should, either.