Gun professionals screw up.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

so, guns are dangerous.

OK, one more time.

"Guns are dangerous when not used properly."

Just like cars.
Just like pools.
Just like buckets.
Just like hammers.
Just like everything else.

Just like information.
(do you want government regulation for possessing information, too?)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

but Joh (sic), does this mean you agree that guns are dangerous when not used properly?

Of course they are. Just like cars, ladders, fire, lawn mowers, parachutes, and hundreds of other everyday things. What ever gave you the idea that I might think otherwise?

Are you suggesting that anything that is dangerous when misused should be banned?

Be careful for what you ask...

If you have some point you would like to make, just be out with it. Preferably something more than: "lol".

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I find it funny how often you'll hear people talk about how guns should be handled with care yet how frequent they are handled carelessly.

I find it funny how often you'll hear people talk about how carsshould be handled with care yet how frequent they are handled carelessly.

I find it funny how often you'll hear people talk about how electric power should be handled with care yet how frequent it is handled carelessly.

I find it funny how often you'll hear people talk about how anything powered by oil or natural gas should be handled with care yet how frequent it is handled carelessly.

I find it funny how often you'll hear people talk about how anything powered by oil or natural gas should be handled with care yet how frequent it is handled carelessly.

etc, etc, etc. Your point?

Most people use things safely and say so. Some people can't or won't sue things safely. Does one person's misuse condemn tens of thousands to be automaticall inept and unsafe?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I can see both sides. It's a weak argument to say that guns aren't a problem if people treat them with respect, however. Many people (yes, even licensed and trained gun owners) don't treat them with respect. The skydiving analogy is still good here....people who treat their canopy with respect...have the experience and training to jump it, well, they still screw up and do things that they shouldn't. It happens. It's always going to happen. Even people saying that you need to treat a gun with respect have probably screwed up at some point much like experienced skydivers who instruct have probably screwed up at some point.

So what would you think if the government wanted to confiscate your parachute rig, because of a few other people who operated their skydiving gear dangerously and got hurt?

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

So what would you think if the government wanted to confiscate your parachute rig, because of a few other people who operated their skydiving gear dangerously and got hurt?

I think a much better simile would be: "So what would you think if they wanted to confiscate my parachute rig because of a few other people who operated their skydiving gear dangerously and hurt or killed third parties."

It's kinda funny when recognized experts shoot themselves in the foot, ultimately it's when innocent people get killed that people call for guns to be banned.

If there were a lot of whuffo's dieing on the ground, I probably wouldn't care if they wanted to take my rig, since I wouldn't be using it anyways. Fortunately, for the most part skydiving only puts risk on the participants.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Kennedy 0]

What makes you think the people dying in firearms accidents aren't the firearms owners?

If the people getting planted are not the people using the guns, then your objection stands and we really have something to look at. However, my understanding is that the people geting hurt are the participants (which makes John's analogy worth considering).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jumper03 0]

Quote

What makes you think the people dying in firearms accidents aren't the firearms owners?

because there's no way that 4 y.o. in Houston that shot his 2 y.o. brother a few weeks ago could own a gun.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Kennedy 0]

OK, that's one (terrible) incident.

What about the other nine hundred or so?

Anecdotes, no matter how emotional, don't beat statistics.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jumper03 0]

Quote

OK, that's one (terrible) incident.

What about the other nine hundred or so?

Anecdotes, no matter how emotional, don't beat statistics.

true but the guy who pounds in had to rent or own his/her own gear so 100% ownership in this case.

It's just too bad that stupid, careless people exist and fuck it up for the rest of us.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Tell you what. I'll go without a gun for the whole of 2005 if you'll go without fresh water, sewers, electric power, anything powered by oil or natural gas, you only eat organic food, and you use no shampoo or commercially produced soap. Then we'll see who got on better at the New Years boogie.

But you can't do that in Chicago, where you still benefit from the guns that the police carry, or even within US borders, where you benefit from the guns that the military carries.

So not much of a promise, unless you're willing to spend the year in a max security prison, or perhaps in the tundra with the polar bears.

I'm not stopping John from living within the US borders or a big city. He just can't personally use engineered products, and I can't personally use a gun.

Maybe you'd like to return to the stone age, which is where we'd be without engineered products. Many many countries have shown they can get along just fine without an armed population.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Dr, my last posting on this subject will be this statement. I'll give you the second half of it, I'm sure you can figure out the first part of my thought:

"...pry them from my cold, dead hand."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe you'd like to return to the stone age, which is where we'd be without engineered products. Many many countries have shown they can get along just fine without an armed population.

Not very many. The British police are increasingly carrying weapons now. Chicago cops - not a doubt. So your not personally using one isn't very meaningful. You benefit from their presence in your city. Without them, only the strong will stay safe, the rest will rely on luck or hiding, or money to hire some of the strong to protect them.

Living in the real world, I liked engineered goods and pubilc order. The only world where the strong and corrupt don't take advantage is in Marx's ideology.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

etc, etc, etc. Your point?

Those are necessary. Guns are not.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Jimbo 0]

Cars aren't necessary and they're certainly dangerous.

Electricity isn't necessary, high-voltage current absolutely isn't necessary.

Oil? Gas? Neither is necessary, technology exists that would allow us to live without either.

You've decided that everything listed above is necessary for you to be to comfortable in your day to day existance. Bet you'd be pretty pissed if someone came along and tried to take them from you, huh?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Or even use spreadsheets to overcomplicate things like planning trips and stuff.

He will do it too....Next time I want revision numbers!

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Vallerina 2]

Oh, blah blah blah. Grocery stores aren't necessary either because we could all grow our own food.

To maintain a comfortable standard living in today's society, those things are necessary. Guns are not.

I forgot. It's Speaker's Corner. Everything must be worded so very precisely because anything too vague leads to the .01% exception.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

To maintain a comfortable standard living in today's society, those things are necessary. Guns are not.

By whose standard?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

Quote

To maintain a comfortable standard living in today's society, those things are necessary. Guns are not.

By whose standard?
Jim

Sigh....

Going back to the jumping example...it's not necessary to be able to eat, have shelter, etc. If skydiving were outlawed, those who had the sport for enjoyment would not lose things like food. Your debate may say, "Well, what about those that work in the sport?" It's a valid point. Luckily, that number is few and most could find other jobs. However, the danger of a situation does not justify a job.

Anyways, I find it funny that the second you bring up a problem with guns, you get attacked. Sorry, but you can say that gun safety will prevent people from getting hurt. Innocent people will always get hurt because of careless use of guns. That's just a fact. That's called the "other side" which you must acknowledge in a debate.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Anyways, I find it funny that the second you bring up a problem with guns, you get attacked.

Usually because the problem is with the user (which is usually involved in a crime), not the gun, yet guns get blamed and then people try to pass legislation against them.

Quote

Innocent people will always get hurt because of careless use of guns.

Innocent people get hurt because of careless use of everything. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Innocent people are saved by the use of guns all of the time.

Quote

That's just a fact. That's called the "other side" which you must acknowledge in a debate.

And you must too.

Guns aren't necessary in society, you can live without them. You can also live without prescription drugs.

Both could save your life one day, but the guns kill less people every year.

People abuse prescription drugs far more than firearms, yet no one is trying to ban all prescription drugs.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

etc, etc, etc. Your point?

Those are necessary. Guns are not.

As I've been saying to Kallend, armed cops maintain order in Chicago. Nevermind private ownership, what do you think would happen if they all left?

It's not what you think of 95% of society. It's what the other 5 do.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

you can say that gun safety will prevent people from getting hurt. Innocent people will always get hurt because of careless use of guns.

Fewer than one thousand people are killed in firearms related accidents each year. Studies vary, but between 1 million and 3.6 million crimes are stopped with firearms each year.
(not to mention the number that are never started because of guns)

If you want to consider a cost-benefit analysis, you have to consider to benefits as well.


(you might want to consider shitting on personal freedom and screwing with an amendment before banning, as well)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,131]

>>Anyways, I find it funny that the second you bring up a problem with guns, you get attacked.

>you might want to consider shitting on personal freedom and screwing with an amendment before banning, as well.

As Kennedy handily proves Val's point.

[Kennedy 0]

Don't bother explaining how banning guns isn't shitting on a personal freedom; don't bother showing how it's not screwig with an amendment to the constitution; don't bother considering benefits in your cost-benefit analysis; just claim victim status and call your oppenents mean.

(oh yeah, and bill, the arguments against gun rights hold less water than arguing for creationism in science class, but you agree with the conclusion; Suddenly you become far less critical of bad science...)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,131]

> Don't bother explaining how banning guns . . .

Once again proving Val's point. She didn't say she supported banning guns, but your knee-jerk reaction was exactly what she described.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Once again proving Val's point. She didn't say she supported banning guns, but your knee-jerk reaction was exactly what she described.

OK, now you're acting like kallend. Read what's there, Bill. My "knee-jerk" reaction was a simple reply to her post, and I didn't mention banning guns in that reply. Her first post sepcifically said she didn't support bannings guns, so I didn't even consider it a topic of discussion

The idea of banning guns came up when she continued on with others; the "guns aren't necessary" bit. She also placed herself squarely within the frame of "the other side" of the debate.

You also might want to consider a dozen back-and-forths later wouldn't be considered "the second you {post}" by most people

I'm also waiting for someone to mention a problem with guns. So far I've seen a problem with society - crime, and I've seen a problem with people - improper handlling. Has anyone brought up a true problem with guns?

Maybe you mght want to take a few minutes to read the thread, rather than scan it like a mod most often does, before jumping to her defense on such shaky grounds.

ps - I could lodge stronger complaints about being attacked the moment a person posts anything pro-gun. (gun nut, insensitive, nazi, everything short of baby-killer, you get the idea)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*