Guns Used.....cont

[Gallstones]

[Since the sole purpose of a gun is to harm or kill, I call bs on this analogy.

Killing is a legitimate act and having the best tool to do that is legitimate also.

Where did I say anything about that? I was just pointing out that a gun has one use while rope has multiple.

So what?
Killing isn't wrong. Being purposed to kill doesn't make the gun wrong either.
How many different uses does a sponge have? How about a fork or a refrigerator?

What the fuck? Did you just jump in and read only my last post and not what everyone was discussing? Please, go read or re-read the last handful of posts before coming to fucked up conclusions about what I think.

No.
Tell me what pertinence it is that a gun has one purpose--it's the purpose you dislike, not that it only has the one.

[Kristie]

Since the sole purpose of a gun is to harm or kill, I call bs on this analogy.

There are lots of sporting events in which people who have never owned a gun for any other reason participate. And hanging is still used in some countries to execute those on death row. Korea is one such country. I think Japan, too, but I'd have to look that up. An object in itself has no purpose; people have purposes and they choose whatever is available to them to achieve those purposes. I'm not in the crowd that wants absolutely unrestricted access to all forms of firearms; I'm just saying that prohibition won't work in the US. If the goal is to reduce the number of deaths, it would be counter-productive to attempt, seeing as how many deaths would result from trying to enforce handgun prohibition. And then you'd have the equivalent of moonshiners. People making guns at home, without regulations or quality controls. That's a recipe for an even greater disaster than the current handgun-related suicide rate.

You can't argue that a gun's sole purpose isn't to harm or kill. They were created as a weapon and sports using them are just showing how accurately someone can use them. I would also like to point out that I have never once said I want guns banned.

[FBM]

FBM

The method of testing would be to measure suicide attempts. If you had, say, 220,000 attempts in the USA each year, and 20,000 suicide deaths, (those figures are from a professional estimate) then you could say there were 0.075% of the population attempting each year. Of which 9% result in death.

Now if you compare the attempts per capita and percentage of attempts that end in death with Japan, say, you might get some real data.

Japan has one of the developed world's highest rate of suicide, and it appears to be because suicide is a common consequence of losing a job. Here in NZ and in the USA, that would be unusual. The high rate would be even higher if hand guns were available, since most suicide attempts actually fail. The most successful method used in Japan is throwing oneself in front of a train. This has a 'success' rate similar to hand guns. It is so common in Japan that the train companies bill the relatives of suicides for damages.

Incidentally, you mentioned hanging as the most common successful suicide form in NZ. Did you know that it was the second highest in the USA? It is probable, that if hand guns were not available, that hanging would then become the no. 1 American method. The single most common method of attempting suicide, though, is drugs, at 75% of all attempts, though only 2 to 3% of those attempts succeed.

This in no way addresses my doubt about how you can get statistics that removing handguns from the US public would reduce the number of overall successful suicides in the US. It smells of red herring.

[Gallstones]

I decline your invitation to be a sheeple, sheeple.

He says without irony

You sound just the same as every other gun-touting, right-wing American. There is nothing original about you what-so-ever. If I was shown a transcript from Glenn Beck and a post by you I wouldn't know the difference.

These are not my words. WTF!?

[Animavore]

I decline your invitation to be a sheeple, sheeple.

He says without irony

You sound just the same as every other gun-touting, right-wing American. There is nothing original about you what-so-ever. If I was shown a transcript from Glenn Beck and a post by you I wouldn't know the difference.

These are not my words. WTF!?

WTF is right?! I'm not sure what happened there

[Kristie]

No.
Tell me what pertinence it is that a gun has one purpose--it's the purpose you dislike, not that it only has the one.

you've got some crazy serious tunnel vision.
I am grateful for guns and their sole purpose, in the hands of police. I will not argue that they should be banned because I do not believe they should. I've only ever stated that I will never own a gun and they are not permitted in my home, unless you are a cop.

[FBM]

You can't argue that a gun's sole purpose isn't to harm or kill. They were created as a weapon and sports using them are just showing how accurately someone can use them.

But I did. Guns and other inanimate objects don't have central nervous systems or purposes. People have purposes.

I would also like to point out that I have never once said I want guns banned.

Ah. Sorry if I made that assumption. I just kinda dip in and out of this thread. I miss a lot of posts.

[Seth]

For me, in trying to decide whether or not pulling a gun in that situation was justified, that news story is lacking in some important details. What are the relative sizes of the line-cutting, face-punching twat compared to the guy with the gun? How strong was the punch? What was the attacker's posture and attitude? Was it a single punch and then he backed off, or was he still posturing aggressively? Did the guy with the gun have, for example, a ruptured vertebral disc that prevented him from engaging physically (sans handgun)? Did he have a pregnant wife and/or kids with him that he was protecting? And if not, were there defenseless customers nearby that were being seriously, physically threatened by that guy?

I'm pretty sure that Seth would say that none of that makes a difference; if somebody punches you, you have a right to defend yourself by whatever means at your disposal. I have to pretty much agree, as long as you're still in danger. I probably wouldn't, though, unless the other guy pulled a weapon or was just fucking huge. I'd give Hapkido a try first. I busted my balls 5 nights a week for 6 years to get those skills and have yet to use a single one of them.

No, the situation makes ALL the difference. If it had been a five-foot-tall 98 pound girl "punching" a 250 pound linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys, he would not have been justified in pulling a gun. Nor would he have been justified in SHOOTING the assailant under those conditions, at that moment. Had the assailant CONTINUED his attack in the face of a drawn handgun, that changes the situation radically and he probably WOULD have been justified in shooting. Someone who does not retreat in the face of superior force like a displayed handgun is absolutely a lethal threat.

And Hapkido is great, and if you feel confident it's a substitute for pulling a gun, by all means use it. But, Hapkido actually requires you to lay hands on your assailant, and that is ALWAYS more dangerous than scaring him off by pulling a handgun. And for those who aren't Hapkido experts, a handgun is a fine substitute. Even a little tiny one.

[Seth]

I decline your invitation to be a sheeple, sheeple.

He says without irony

You sound just the same as every other gun-touting, right-wing American. There is nothing original about you what-so-ever. If I was shown a transcript from Glenn Beck and a post by you I wouldn't know the difference.

Good. I'm a fan of Glenn Beck. His prognostications have proven 100 percent accurate so far.

[Kristie]

You can't argue that a gun's sole purpose isn't to harm or kill. They were created as a weapon and sports using them are just showing how accurately someone can use them.

But I did. Guns and other inanimate objects don't have central nervous systems or purposes. People have purposes.

I would also like to point out that I have never once said I want guns banned.

Ah. Sorry if I made that assumption. I just kinda dip in and out of this thread. I miss a lot of posts.

Inanimate objects are made by humans to fill a purpose. Guns weren't made to be paper weights.

[Animavore]

I decline your invitation to be a sheeple, sheeple.

He says without irony

You sound just the same as every other gun-touting, right-wing American. There is nothing original about you what-so-ever. If I was shown a transcript from Glenn Beck and a post by you I wouldn't know the difference.

Good. I'm a fan of Glenn Beck. His prognostications have proven 100 percent accurate so far.

Good to see you have a sense of humour

[FBM]

For me, in trying to decide whether or not pulling a gun in that situation was justified, that news story is lacking in some important details. What are the relative sizes of the line-cutting, face-punching twat compared to the guy with the gun? How strong was the punch? What was the attacker's posture and attitude? Was it a single punch and then he backed off, or was he still posturing aggressively? Did the guy with the gun have, for example, a ruptured vertebral disc that prevented him from engaging physically (sans handgun)? Did he have a pregnant wife and/or kids with him that he was protecting? And if not, were there defenseless customers nearby that were being seriously, physically threatened by that guy?

I'm pretty sure that Seth would say that none of that makes a difference; if somebody punches you, you have a right to defend yourself by whatever means at your disposal. I have to pretty much agree, as long as you're still in danger. I probably wouldn't, though, unless the other guy pulled a weapon or was just fucking huge. I'd give Hapkido a try first. I busted my balls 5 nights a week for 6 years to get those skills and have yet to use a single one of them.

No, the situation makes ALL the difference. If it had been a five-foot-tall 98 pound girl "punching" a 250 pound linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys, he would not have been justified in pulling a gun. Nor would he have been justified in SHOOTING the assailant under those conditions, at that moment. Had the assailant CONTINUED his attack in the face of a drawn handgun, that changes the situation radically and he probably WOULD have been justified in shooting. Someone who does not retreat in the face of superior force like a displayed handgun is absolutely a lethal threat.

And Hapkido is great, and if you feel confident it's a substitute for pulling a gun, by all means use it. But, Hapkido actually requires you to lay hands on your assailant, and that is ALWAYS more dangerous than scaring him off by pulling a handgun. And for those who aren't Hapkido experts, a handgun is a fine substitute. Even a little tiny one.

Hapkido is only sometimes a possible substitute. Like you said, the situation is everything.

And after enough training, the prospect of laying hands on someone in self-defense starts to sound kinda fun. But...only in the right situation. You never know who has a gun or knife hidden under their shirt.

[Gallstones]

You can't argue that a gun's sole purpose isn't to harm or kill. They were created as a weapon and sports using them are just showing how accurately someone can use them.

But I did. Guns and other inanimate objects don't have central nervous systems or purposes. People have purposes.

I would also like to point out that I have never once said I want guns banned.

Ah. Sorry if I made that assumption. I just kinda dip in and out of this thread. I miss a lot of posts.

Inanimate objects are made by humans to fill a purpose. Guns weren't made to be paper weights.

Neither were refrigerators.
But if someone drops one on you you will probably be dead.

[FBM]

You can't argue that a gun's sole purpose isn't to harm or kill. They were created as a weapon and sports using them are just showing how accurately someone can use them.

But I did. Guns and other inanimate objects don't have central nervous systems or purposes. People have purposes.

I would also like to point out that I have never once said I want guns banned.

Ah. Sorry if I made that assumption. I just kinda dip in and out of this thread. I miss a lot of posts.

Inanimate objects are made by humans to fill a purpose. Guns weren't made to be paper weights.

True. But a paper weight can also be used to kill if the person holding it has a lethal purpose for it. Just as a handgun can be used either for sport, self-defense, murder or suicide, all depending on the person's purpose.

[Seth]

You can't argue that a gun's sole purpose isn't to harm or kill.

I most certainly can. The vast, vast majority of handguns are never used to "harm or kill" anything other than paper targets and tin cans. The number of guns USED IN CRIME is something like 1/1000th of one percent of all the handguns in the US, so you're simply wrong.

They were created as a weapon and sports using them are just showing how accurately someone can use them.

So what? Weapons have a legitimate place in society. How many swords are used to kill people these days? How many young kids and adults participate in the sport of fencing? Should they be denied that Olympic sport merely because "swords were created as weapons?"

Bollocks.