Another school shooting

[Flint]

I meant what I meant. Guns are designed to inflict harm. I didn't specify justfied or non-justified harm.
I simply meant that guns are designed to cause harm, while cars are designed to transport.

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

There are more responsible gun owners then you are giving them credit for.

I haven't said anything about gun owners...

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Flint

I meant what I meant. Guns are designed to inflict harm. I didn't specify justfied or non-justified harm.
I simply meant that guns are designed to cause harm, while cars are designed to transport.

I haven't said anything about gun owners...

So...what is your point then? that people shouldn't own guns because they are designed to cause harm? what about knives? Guns don't cause harm they are used by irresponsible criminal people to cause harm. That is no reason to condem the lawful citizens who feel more secure because they have a gun or use them to hunt. My comparison between the gun and car was simply to show that it isn't the design of an item that causes the problem, it is the person irresponsibly using it.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

So...what is your point then? that people shouldn't own guns because they are designed to cause harm? what about knives? Guns don't cause harm they are used by irresponsible criminal people to cause harm. That is no reason to condem the lawful citizens who feel more secure because they have a gun or use them to hunt.

I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.

"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

My comparison between the gun and car was simply to show that it isn't the design of an item that causes the problem, it is the person irresponsibly using it.

Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

:::launches furious internet search campaign, to cite example of death-by-toilet-paper-beating:::

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.

"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.

"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.

"Law abiding" responsible citizens are not likely to have their guns stolen or used on them. And their children are not likely to get possession of the weapon.

Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

The possibility is there...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
...

I know....the gun can't hurt anybody if it isn't wielded by a person, right? Ok. Let's have a showdown. I'll use a gun, you use a knife, OK?

Just as a gun can't do as much damage without a person, a person can't do as much damage without a gun.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I know....the gun can't hurt anybody if it isn't wielded by a person, right? Ok. Let's have a showdown. I'll use a gun, you use a knife, OK?

Just as a gun can't do as much damage without a person, a person can't do as much damage without a gun.

No weapon can do any damage without a person. And a person can defend themselves more effectively with a gun.

If you were able to actually eliminate all firearms, we'd be back in the realm where bigger/stronger people could effectively threaten smaller and weaker people by wielding a club or edged weapon. But that doesn't worry me, because you can't eliminate all firearms. In fact, I recently saw a collection of firearms manufactured *in prisons*. What does worry me is liberal dilettantes with little knowlege and less thought who want to use the government to disarm me because they think it might help them "feel better".

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

And a person can defend themselves more effectively with a gun.

MaggieL again ignores facts. Those who carry guns for defense more often have that gun used against them. Cops carry a gun as an offensive weapon. When called to defend another, the cop goes offensive. Guns for defense is reasoning based only upon emotion, speculation, and in direct contradiction to statistical reality.

Second fact from history. As number of guns increase, then number of violent murders increase accordingly. This was documented many years previous in the Cellar.

We license drivers and cars. Dangerous items require the user and machine to be carefully trained and maintained. That is the purpose of licensing – responsibility. MaggieL does not demand requirements for responsibility. She advocates rights. But responsibility is secondary and sometimes ignored. No wonder she also advocates extraordinary rendition, torture, violations of the Geneva Convention, violations of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, nonsense called 'unlawful enemy combatant', and eliminating the writ of Habeas Corpus. A complete denial of responsible attitude – what some call American morality.

Responsibility is secondary to rights? Who often suffers when carrying the gun? MaggieL forgot that fact.

No one is talking about banning guns. But then need for responsible gun owners is somehow spun into myths about eliminating all guns. Included is a myth that more guns means safer streets - a complete lie.

Everyone working in a Post Office should carry a gun? Good. Then the wacko need not go home - realize his mistake - before shooting his manager. A perfect solution to underfunded pension funds and social security.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
...

Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?

National Security Alert! Heroin supports the Taliban, you support Heroin, therefore you support the Taliban!
:::nabs you in the middle of the night, holds you indefinitely without trial, ships you overseas to be tortured in secret prisons:::

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?

I wouldn't oppose that.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.

"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.


Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

I would be fine with not having my guns as long as NO ONE ELSE gets to have them either, ever... that means cops also.
Until that time... they stay.
BTW, I grew-up on a ranch and my side-arm was used as protection against snakes, boar and a myriad of other things. Not just humans. But, poachers were also an issue.
That you have a problem with people protecting themselves is suspect in my eyes.

Deer in the US are overpopulated, as are many other species, culling is nessicary... hunters are also the major supporters of most of your green, environmentalist, groups. Get educated.

[Spexxvet]

Dude - relax.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I would be fine with not having my guns as long as NO ONE ELSE gets to have them either, ever... that means cops also.
Until that time... they stay.

Because cops..??

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

BTW, I grew-up on a ranch and my side-arm was used as protection against snakes, boar and a myriad of other things. Not just humans. But, poachers were also an issue.

You couldn't have done that with a shotgun or rifle?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

That you have a problem with people protecting themselves is suspect in my eyes.

I don't. Buy a bulletproof vest, a burglar alarm, a knife, a rifle, a bodyguard, whatever. Why does defense/protection have to mean a handgun?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Deer in the US are overpopulated, as are many other species, culling is nessicary... hunters are also the major supporters of most of your green, environmentalist, groups. Get educated.

I said I don't have a problem with hunting for food.

Who, here, has ever had to use a gun to protect themselves? I am 47 years old, and have never needed a gun to defend myself. I am alive, never been robbed, haven't been in a fistfight since high school. Why do you pro gun folks feel like it's the only way to protect yourselves?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't. Buy a bulletproof vest, a burglar alarm, a knife, a rifle, a bodyguard, whatever. Why does defense/protection have to mean a handgun?

Because most defensive uses of handguns occur within less that 7.5 feet, IIRC (I pulled that particular number out of my ass, rather than spending the time to look it up, but I'll bet it's correct). My rifles are made to shoot at distances up to 1000 yards.

Do you use a sledgehammer for all of your small home improvement projects?

The handgun, incidentally, is there when all other options fail. Bulletproof vests are heavy, unwieldy, uncomfortable, only protect your center of mass, and are illegal in many jurisdictions.

I don't go strolling around in crack neighborhoods for fun at night, just to see if someone hassles me enough to justify shooting them.

As others have stated, most legal handgun owners go out of their way to avoid overtly dangerous situations. Safety is as much a matter of pre-planning as it is response.

Unlike a lot of people here I get credibly threatened fairly regularly. I can go so far as to say that I collect death threats the way most people collect baseball cards.

[Hippikos]

no, even our hardest gun control won't stop the crazies.

Once read that in Canada you can get a gun almost as easy as in the US, yet gun related deaths are much less. Both countries have the same historic frontier spirit. But in Canada the frontier iconic is the Mountie, while in the US the heroes are outlaws.

There is more going on than just access to deadly weaponry. US culture has a latent violence and many of these crazies indicated that they were inspired by violent movies or TV series. Also the media plays a part in the recent rage. It's a known fact that paranoid people are inspired by the extensive coverage and think "that's a guy like me and that is his solution to his problems".