Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Kristie]

Violence is not caused by weapons. Weapons are used for violence and there are many weapons.

ayep

Hands are weapons, like knives are and 2 x 4's.
So why choose one type?
Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

Hands are a pretty necessary body part, knives are used in tons of applications (surgery, cooking, manufacturing) and 2X4's are used to build shelter and furniture. I'm unaware of any positive use for a gun. The only use a gun has is killing.

No. Wrong.
A positve use of a gun is shooting it.

That is a positive use for people like cops and the military, not ordinary citizens. You are delusional and wrong. In fact, you couldn't be wronger. And my lack if experience shooting killing instruments does not make my opinions invalid or automatically incorrect.

[Kristie]

I don't want to take 'all' your guns. If I left out that word last time, it was by mistake. I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to bother with going back and checking. So, yes, I do want automatic weapons taken from regular citizens. Any guns that aren't auto or semi auto, I'm perfectly fine with people legally buying and registering them.

Well worded reply. Exactly what I expected from someone like you.

[Gallstones]

I don't want to take 'all' your guns. If I left out that word last time, it was by mistake. I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to bother with going back and checking. So, yes, I do want automatic weapons taken from regular citizens. Any guns that aren't auto or semi auto, I'm perfectly fine with people legally buying and registering them.

Well worded reply. Exactly what I expected from someone like you.

You are advocating placing restrictions on people--restrictions that amount to a violation of a fundamental Right--and you don't even know the subject. You just eructate terms.

What other kind of response is warranted when presented with that kind of ignorant hubris?

[Gallstones]

Hands are weapons, like knives are and 2 x 4's.
So why choose one type?
Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

Hands are a pretty necessary body part, knives are used in tons of applications (surgery, cooking, manufacturing) and 2X4's are used to build shelter and furniture. I'm unaware of any positive use for a gun. The only use a gun has is killing.

No. Wrong.
A positve use of a gun is shooting it.

That is a positive use for people like cops and the military, not ordinary citizens. You are delusional and wrong. In fact, you couldn't be wronger. And my lack if experience shooting killing instruments does not make my opinions invalid or automatically incorrect.

Yes it does.

I expect you could have opinions on the best drugs to treat a malignancy but only a fool would consult you instead of an Oncologist.

[Kristie]

Hands are weapons, like knives are and 2 x 4's.
So why choose one type?
Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

Hands are a pretty necessary body part, knives are used in tons of applications (surgery, cooking, manufacturing) and 2X4's are used to build shelter and furniture. I'm unaware of any positive use for a gun. The only use a gun has is killing.

No. Wrong.
A positve use of a gun is shooting it.

That is a positive use for people like cops and the military, not ordinary citizens. You are delusional and wrong. In fact, you couldn't be wronger. And my lack if experience shooting killing instruments does not make my opinions invalid or automatically incorrect.

Yes it does.

I don't need to know how to properly hold a gun to know that shooting someone with it could kill them, that an automatic means they can kill more people, faster and that automatic weapons are not necessary for hunting.
As usual, you are wrong.

[Kristie]

Hands are weapons, like knives are and 2 x 4's.
So why choose one type?
Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

Hands are a pretty necessary body part, knives are used in tons of applications (surgery, cooking, manufacturing) and 2X4's are used to build shelter and furniture. I'm unaware of any positive use for a gun. The only use a gun has is killing.

No. Wrong.
A positve use of a gun is shooting it.

That is a positive use for people like cops and the military, not ordinary citizens. You are delusional and wrong. In fact, you couldn't be wronger. And my lack if experience shooting killing instruments does not make my opinions invalid or automatically incorrect.

Yes it does.

I expect you could have opinions on the best drugs to treat a malignancy but only a fool would consult you instead of an Oncologist.

Horrible analogy.

[Gallstones]

Trigger Warning!!!!!
Cat lovers turn away.

[Gallstones]

No. Wrong.
A positve use of a gun is shooting it.

That is a positive use for people like cops and the military, not ordinary citizens. You are delusional and wrong. In fact, you couldn't be wronger. And my lack if experience shooting killing instruments does not make my opinions invalid or automatically incorrect.

Evidence that your opinion should be considered invalid is in the emotive talking points you use to present it.

If you can't speak with facts, of what use is your opinion over those who do speak with facts?
Opinions come easy. Gaining knowledge and thinking takes effort.

[Kristie]

No. Wrong.
A positve use of a gun is shooting it.

That is a positive use for people like cops and the military, not ordinary citizens. You are delusional and wrong. In fact, you couldn't be wronger. And my lack if experience shooting killing instruments does not make my opinions invalid or automatically incorrect.

Evidence that your opinion should be considered invalid is in the emotive talking points you use to present it.

If you can't speak with facts, of what use is your opinion over those who do speak with facts?

Because I'm not a paranoid gun nut? I'm not emotionally attached to a killing tool? My opinion is just as valid, if not more so, than yours or Seth's.

[Jason]

Trigger Warning!!!!!
Cat lovers turn away.

The Short Happy Life of Francis MacComber

[orpheus]

Violence is not caused by weapons. Weapons are used for violence and there are many weapons.

ayep

Hands are weapons, like knives are and 2 x 4's.
So why choose one type?

Yes, why? Good question for you, GS. Why are guns so important? Wouldn't a knife or hands or 2X4s be just as good? Because guns allow one to kill more efficiently.

Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

False dichotomy, and you're intelligent enough to know that this has been pointed out to you many times already. We can work toward this bigger goal and at the same time rectify a situation (easy access to guns) that will go a long way toward eliminating one huge type of violence.

By the way, it's interesting that you contradict yourself within a few posts. You write:

Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

but before that you also wrote:

You can't limit or eliminate violence.

[orpheus]

I don't want to take 'all' your guns. If I left out that word last time, it was by mistake. I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to bother with going back and checking. So, yes, I do want automatic weapons taken from regular citizens. Any guns that aren't auto or semi auto, I'm perfectly fine with people legally buying and registering them.

Well worded reply. Exactly what I expected from someone like you.

You are advocating placing restrictions on people--restrictions that amount to a violation of a fundamental Right--and you don't even know the subject. You just eructate terms.

What other kind of response is warranted when presented with that kind of ignorant hubris?

This is interesting. You, GS, and Seth tend to trot out this "argument" of anti-gun people "not knowing the subject". But you seem to think the subject is "guns". But it's not. The real subject (if we're going to specify) is "the role of guns in violence in society". You don't have to have fired a gun to know this subject.

So. Do you know the subject - the real subject? Are you an expert in that field of societal study? It seems - from what you and Seth have posted, that you certainly don't know the real subject better than anyone else here. Moreover, you evince a distinct bias since you have a personal stake in the matter.

[Gallstones]

No. Wrong.
A positve use of a gun is shooting it.

That is a positive use for people like cops and the military, not ordinary citizens. You are delusional and wrong. In fact, you couldn't be wronger. And my lack if experience shooting killing instruments does not make my opinions invalid or automatically incorrect.

Evidence that your opinion should be considered invalid is in the emotive talking points you use to present it.

If you can't speak with facts, of what use is your opinion over those who do speak with facts?

Because I'm not a paranoid gun nut? I'm not emotionally attached to a killing tool? My opinion is just as valid, if not more so, than yours or Seth's.

Why then do you use emotional terminology like "killing tool", and "nut"?

You are a paranoid gun nut--you fear people owning guns, certain guns in particular.

I have asked you twice already which firearms--specifically--do you IYO think should be banned?
Why, IYO, those particular firearms?
What is it about them, IYO, that warrants banning them?

Show me how much your opinion is worth.

[Gallstones]

I don't want to take 'all' your guns. If I left out that word last time, it was by mistake. I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to bother with going back and checking. So, yes, I do want automatic weapons taken from regular citizens. Any guns that aren't auto or semi auto, I'm perfectly fine with people legally buying and registering them.

Well worded reply. Exactly what I expected from someone like you.

You are advocating placing restrictions on people--restrictions that amount to a violation of a fundamental Right--and you don't even know the subject. You just eructate terms.

What other kind of response is warranted when presented with that kind of ignorant hubris?

This is interesting. You, GS, and Seth tend to trot out this "argument" of anti-gun people "not knowing the subject". But you seem to think the subject is "guns". But it's not. The real subject (if we're going to specify) is "the role of guns in violence in society". You don't have to have fired a gun to know this subject.

So. Do you know the subject - the real subject? Are you an expert in that field of societal study? It seems - from what you and Seth have posted, that you certainly don't know the real subject better than anyone else here. Moreover, you evince a distinct bias since you have a personal stake in the matter.

You seem to think you know the real subject.
"Subjects" are a dime a dozen even with inflation.
How about the real problem?

Gun violence is about psychology, and sociology. It is not about guns. The irrational and the lazy want to make it about guns rather than do the hard work of gathering data and thinking about how to address the psychology and sociology of what makes people violent. Doing that should address the real problem.

I have nowhere, ever suggested that I have any expertise in either of those.
What is your expertise, enlighten me?

[Gallstones]

Violence is not caused by weapons. Weapons are used for violence and there are many weapons.

ayep

Hands are weapons, like knives are and 2 x 4's.
So why choose one type?

Yes, why? Good question for you, GS. Why are guns so important? Wouldn't a knife or hands or 2X4s be just as good? Because guns allow one to kill more efficiently.

Again: Guns are way more funner.
I love the aesthetics of guns, I love the science of guns, I love shooting guns, I love having and collecting guns, I love learning the history of guns, I love guns, and I love sharing that passion with other people who feel as I do about them.

Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

False dichotomy, and you're intelligent enough to know that this has been pointed out to you many times already. We can work toward this bigger goal and at the same time rectify a situation (easy access to guns) that will go a long way toward eliminating one huge type of violence.

By the way, it's interesting that you contradict yourself within a few posts. You write:

Why not address the causes of violence and figure out how to limit it?

but before that you also wrote:

You can't limit or eliminate violence.

How is that a contradiction?
People like to pull these method argument phrases out of their asses. I guess people are supposed to think that is somehow competent discoursive engagment or something.

It is not a contradiction. IMO, based on my knowledge of presently extant hominids, aggression and violence are normal behaviors.
Find out why and find out how to lessen that and you may (or may not) have accomplished something desireable.