Guns

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Yeah, but if criminals are willing to acquire guns illegally, then all you've really done is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Now the criminals have ALL the guns. How does that serve society? You said youself the police can't protect everyone, so let them protect themselves. They have a RIGHT to protect themselves.

NOT LISTENING. I’ve already said that I don’t think there can be a ban in the US until someone can work out a way around the problem that you’ve just pointed out and I’ve already talked about.

I'm sorry, Phoenix, you cannot have it both ways. You just can't. You can't acknowledge that guns are driven by the intent of their user, and still make a moral judgement about them apart from the person supplying the intent.

Yes you can. Look, it’s a machine. So that means that automatically it has to be used by humans to make it work.

Firstly, although it is the intent of the user that commits an act that is bad, where the object comes from itself means that it is not a good thing. These are machines that came from the desire to kill other people more effectively and thus have a more powerful army. They were made for the killing of human beings. Any other use is an adaptation.

This doesn’t mean that the adaptations are invalid, but you have to remember that the object was adapted from a pure instrument of death. Hunting can be done in specific places and the guns not allowed outside of them. Then if somehow you could get around the problem of being protected from criminals, then there is NO valid reason to keep what is left as an instrument of death around.

Secondly, it’s not always the intent of the user that matters. These are lethal machines, and sometimes accidents occur, which had nothing to do with what someone wanted.

Everything else you're talking about is relative. I mean, SWORDS are designed primarily to kill people, and they are MUCH more efficient at it than a spatula. So we need to ban swords and disarm the citizenry before the Renaissance Festivals in our country turn into bloodbaths of violence.

You can have blunt fake swords for festivals and whatever, but I don’t see any need to keep razor sharp samurai swords around.

So why is the murder rate in Washington DC so much higher than most metro areas of the US? All those gun laws should have made the citizens safe, should have driven the murder rate down. It hasn't.

Because that’s the ONLY place that it’s higher. Great it’s disallowed, but pop next door and ure allowed them legally…which sorta defeats the point of trying to keep them out of the criminals hands. Anyway As I have said far to many times before, a leap forward in the ability to police such things are needed before it is realistic in the US.

Do you think every one of THOSE is one too many? Or are people killed in car accidents somehow less important than people killed in gun accidents, that you make one more tragic than the other?

Wow that was a classic way to take what I said completely the wrong way. I said supercedes all other REASONING, as in this argument.

Every one is one too many... right?

Errm…yea, actually. Some things aren’t practical to try and eliminate though, others are. Guns may not be in the US right now, but conceivably in the future they could be.

10 states adopted right-to-carry laws

Doesn’t make much difference to anything I’ve said, because a) if ever it happened it would have to be national and b) as I’ve also said blah blah blah not practicle in US yet blah blah blah should be a goal for future blah.

assigning moral character to an inanimate object makes no sense to me either.

Again, that’s not what im doing. The two things I eliminated from the equation to make this argument can be conceivably dealt with, which is why I did it. The thing that is left is a killing machine, which is it’s origin. Killing is bad, thus something that facilitates it is bad.

First of all, you're not talking about "regulation", you're talking about not letting ANYONE have guns.

some things aare DANGEROUS and therefore must be REGULATED, sometimes made illegal.

Depriving innocent people of their rights is not a game, my friend. Of all people, I would think that you would understand that.

I can see how u’d say that, but then to me, I see something that is a man-made device of death and on the other side a natural human development, so I really don’t feel subject to the sentiment.

BTW, why cant people protect themselves with those electric things that shoot the wires and then send electric current down them?

 

[Sam_The_Man]

You can have blunt fake swords for festivals and whatever, but I don’t see any need to keep razor sharp samurai swords around.

Should we be allowed to keep razor-sharp razors?

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

The day you post a picture of you shaving with a sword is the day i'll take that as a justified comparison.

 

[HuggyBear]

I shave with a razor sharp straight razor - it's at least as sharp as a katana.

 

[W0RF]

NOT LISTENING. I’ve already said that I don’t think there can be a ban in the US until someone can work out a way around the problem that you’ve just pointed out and I’ve already talked about.

Yes, but having said that, you want the guns gone. Guns being gone = ban.

These are machines that came from the desire to kill other people more effectively and thus have a more powerful army. They were made for the killing of human beings. Any other use is an adaptation.

Plenty of commercially available products were first utilized in the military and then adapted for public use. That doesn't strike me as a powerful argument.

Then if somehow you could get around the problem of being protected from criminals, then there is NO valid reason to keep what is left as an instrument of death around.

Except you CAN'T get around that problem. And again, what people do with their things is NOT YOUR BUSINESS if they are not breaking any laws.

Secondly, it’s not always the intent of the user that matters. These are lethal machines, and sometimes accidents occur, which had nothing to do with what someone wanted.

Did you not read the extensive thesis I gave on things in America that cause accidents?

You can have blunt fake swords for festivals and whatever, but I don’t see any need to keep razor sharp samurai swords around.

You need to have a word with Fearless. He has several battle-ready bladed weapons at home and thinks there's a difference between the two.

Because that’s the ONLY place that it’s higher. Great it’s disallowed, but pop next door and ure allowed them legally…which sorta defeats the point of trying to keep them out of the criminals hands.

It's not the ONLY place that it's higher, it's just comparatively worse, especially when murder and violent crime have been enjoying a GENERAL downward trend. And to repeat myself, criminals only get guns from shops in about 20% of the cases.

Wow that was a classic way to take what I said completely the wrong way. I said supercedes all other REASONING, as in this argument.

I still don't see that as taking it the wrong way. You were trying to say that accidental deaths due to guns are reason enough to get rid of them, above and beyond everything else already discussed. Did I get that wrong? And yet they don't cause nearly as many accidental deaths as other items not constructed at all for that purpose.

Errm…yea, actually. Some things aren’t practical to try and eliminate though, others are. Guns may not be in the US right now, but conceivably in the future they could be.

Again, I really don't think the genie's going back in the bottle on this one.

Doesn’t make much difference to anything I’ve said, because a) if ever it happened it would have to be national and b) as I’ve also said blah blah blah not practicle in US yet blah blah blah should be a goal for future blah.

In other words, facts don't concern you.

Again, that’s not what im doing. The two things I eliminated from the equation to make this argument can be conceivably dealt with, which is why I did it. The thing that is left is a killing machine, which is it’s origin. Killing is bad, thus something that facilitates it is bad.

The gap between your conception and reality is more like a chasm with no bridge. How in the world can you say we'll be at a place where everyone will be safe from criminals and never have to worry about defending themselves? And beyond that, what about my point earlier in the thread about liberty and responsibility being intertwined? If you take away a person's right to defend themselves, you take away their FREEDOM to defend themselves. A defining principle of our nation is that the government should not take away our right to defend ourselves, from criminals, from enemies, even from our own government (as they were similarly restricted by their English counterparts prior to the Revolution). So not only do I agree that it's practical, I especially don't care for the end result of this utopian development.

BTW, why cant people protect themselves with those electric things that shoot the wires and then send electric current down them?

Tasers were adapted from regular guns. Any adaptation of a machine designed to kill is pure evil.

 

[Zur]

Well now you sound like you just want to ensure the responsible handling of firearms and prevent crimes when they can be prevented.

That's a stark departure from saying that guns are "pure evil".

There's a big difference between countering an argument and critisizing the person that emitted the argument in the first place. I know the two candidates for the presidential elections couldn't help it but let's not follow that embarassing example now .

I still find that guns are "evil" but there are shades of gray and the degree of evil is not comparable to that which terrorists see in rampant capitalism if you get my gist. Maybe things are different in the States and I can understand the joy of hunting, capturing one's own food and providing for the family. However, the view I have of things over here is that guns are raising the stakes and crimes have increased in violence.

There's a guy who's just turned 50 at the local hospital here and was responsable for the technical stocks. He likes martial arts and had contacts with shady types in the area, going through a bit of rough and tumble himself when he was younger. He explained to me how the area has changed, how the level of violence has steadily increased and how any form of self defense not involving weapons has become useless.

What's especially worrying is that there's been some vicious 15-year olds slamming guns into people's faces and asking for money. There was also this fairly muscular guy who got whacked on the head with a baseball bat when his guard was down. What are these kids (I can't really call them teenagers) going to become when they grow older ? There's also the Eastern or Russian mafia (some Albanians, for example) who are aware of how the law works here and exploit it to their own ends. Those people would certainly not hesitate to make use of a gun.

 

[iolair]

Just as an example, Florida passed shall-issue concealed carry laws in 1987. In the following ten years it issued 350,000 Concealed carry permits. Out of those 350,000 permit holders, only 1 homicide was ever commited

So sure? I think it would be safer to say "Out of those 350,000 permit holders, only one was ever convicted of homicide".

How about those...
- who may have committed homicide but not been caught
- who gunned down thieves who would otherwise have run with the money but without causing harm if unresisted
- who gunned down thieves who would have run if resisted with an unarmed method
- who were themselves shot by attackers when they "upped the ante" by producing their own firearm
- who shot people that they wrongly suspected of being a threat to their safety
- who may have used their legally owned gun to threaten and intimidate others

and that's just the top of my head ... I'm sure there are plenty of other undesirable situations involving guns other than just the simplistic "criminal-gun-owner shoots unarmed law-abiding-citizen"

 

[iolair]

Any adaptation of a machine designed to kill is pure evil.

Adaptations of the gun ... (depending on how far you push the concept of "adaptation"):
- air pistols for target work
- water pistols
- guns in computer games
- rifles used for recreational hunting
- rifles used for real hunting (i.e. hunting for subsistence, to eat the catch)
- rifles used for pest control (foxes that attack poultry etc.)

Oh, and the jet engine was originally designed for a machine designed to kill - the fighter aircraft. Does that make all jet engines pure evil?

 

[Metakill]

Tasers were adapted from regular guns. Any adaptation of a machine designed to kill is pure evil.

Now you are just being assinine, even after everyone has basically conceded the argument to you on some level. Taking every logical tangent you can find to its furthest end does not a reasonable counterargument make to the one that guns are machines designed for killing.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

So sure? I think it would be safer to say "Out of those 350,000 permit holders, only one was ever convicted of homicide".

That's not even the scariest thing about that statistic. It's either "350,000 Floridians felt the need to carry a gun on the streets" or "350,000 Floridians are out there carrying guns on the streets", I'm not sure.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Plenty of commercially available products were first utilized in the military and then adapted for public use. That doesn't strike me as a powerful argument.

Well of course it doesn't you like guns. But these are not adaptations, they are evolved versions of the same idea - to be able to kill people in the most efficient way possible.

Except you CAN'T get around that problem. And again, what people do with their things is NOT YOUR BUSINESS if they are not breaking any laws.

Errr...the obvious flaw with that being that whatever is the law decides that status and I'm saying we should be working towards a day that laws can be introduced in the US the ban guns. Laws can be introduced, so what is the law now is hardly the point, the point we are arguing is whether we SHOULD do that.

Did you not read the extensive thesis I gave on things in America that cause accidents?

Yes, didn't find it relevent to what im saying. Other things cause accidents, amazing, but I'm talking about something that is specifically designed with a purpose that makes it dangerous.

It's not the ONLY place that it's higher, it's just comparatively worse, especially when murder and violent crime have been enjoying a GENERAL downward trend. And to repeat myself, criminals only get guns from shops in about 20% of the cases.

If it's not national and hasnt found a way around the prolems ive mentioned then why are you saying that like I should be surprised - what ive said has implied that that would be the case.

I still don't see that as taking it the wrong way. You were trying to say that accidental deaths due to guns are reason enough to get rid of them, above and beyond everything else already discussed. Did I get that wrong? And yet they don't cause nearly as many accidental deaths as other items not constructed at all for that purpose.

Guns have the uses I have mentioned, and they may well be needed, but there is hope we can come up with alternatives that are less lethal. Guns are lethal weapons, just because accidents happen with other objects this is not the same as the problem with something that is a weapon. What I was saying with the accidental death aspect was that we should use all powers we have to make things safe where possible...

...and no i was not arguing that murder shouldnt be tackled as vigourously or even more so, just that we have more direct options over safety from objects like guns and swords as you mentioned.

Again, I really don't think the genie's going back in the bottle on this one.

Well you can either accept that our race will always have largely evil tendencies or hope that someday that society can greatly cut down on this. I'd rather hope for the best thanks.

In other words, facts don't concern you.

It's the little condescending things like that you say that really piss me off. I didn't say that at all I just said that because of my previous arguments they didn't apply BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM AND NO ONE HAS SOLVED THE INHERRANT PROBLEMS OF SUCH A SYSTEM. ffs...

If you take away a person's right to defend themselves, you take away their FREEDOM to defend themselves. A defining principle of our nation is that the government should not take away our right to defend ourselves, from criminals, from enemies, even from our own government

Having a document that was created many years in the past as an absolute is just not practicle. If you think the government is going to betray you at any moment you certainly shouldn't be paying taxes that partly go into funding the world's greatest military strength. You think that jet plane gives a sod about your revolver?

also freedom comes in different forms...there's the freedom tos but in certain extreme cases there are the freedom froms. the US has some of the highest murder rates in the world, and that surely is a big problem to be looked at. Also a culture that embraces the idea of safety by being well enough armed to take on the crime around it isn't going anywhere good. We should be trying to get rid of crime, and to effictively do that eventually the guns in the US will have to go. Is the lessening of crime also too utopian for you to consider?

Tasers were adapted from regular guns. Any adaptation of a machine designed to kill is pure evil.

U're really getting on my nerves. I didn't say that in fact I have specifically said that by mentioning hunting and protection and yet you just carry on anyway putting words into my mouth as you have so many time in this argument. It's not even misunderstanding, I've said these things clearly and you just ignore them, and it's plain rude.

Tazers aren't as lethal as guns are they? In fact damn tazers what about tranquiliser darts as protection? some kind of fast acting agent if hit? How is that a bad idea? Less death and still have protection. Makes murder that little bit harder whilst adding another level of protection against accidental death.

 

[W0RF]

Well of course it doesn't you like guns.

I do?

Errr...the obvious flaw with that being that whatever is the law decides that status and I'm saying we should be working towards a day that laws can be introduced in the US the ban guns. Laws can be introduced, so what is the law now is hardly the point, the point we are arguing is whether we SHOULD do that.

Why should be make it a goal to ban guns? Isn't it more fruitful to work towards the goal where they're hardly ever needed, rather than violating people's rights for the actions of a few?

Yes, didn't find it relevent to what im saying. Other things cause accidents, amazing, but I'm talking about something that is specifically designed with a purpose that makes it dangerous.

Actually, what you SAID was that if it kills one child by accident, that's one death too many. By targeting guns, you are actually ignoring other areas that actually kill MORE PEOPLE. Is you goal to save lives, or just to ban guns? I'd prefer to save lives.

If it's not national and hasnt found a way around the prolems ive mentioned then why are you saying that like I should be surprised - what ive said has implied that that would be the case.

But there's no evidence that criminals flock to gun-restricted areas. I'm not aware of career criminals that move to another part of the country to get better work, like they're engineers or something. Your point might be valid if there was any basis in logic or in fact to support it.

Guns have the uses I have mentioned, and they may well be needed, but there is hope we can come up with alternatives that are less lethal. Guns are lethal weapons, just because accidents happen with other objects this is not the same as the problem with something that is a weapon. What I was saying with the accidental death aspect was that we should use all powers we have to make things safe where possible...

But again, bypassing areas with bigger problems shows that your priority is more on banning guns than on saving lives.

Well you can either accept that our race will always have largely evil tendencies or hope that someday that society can greatly cut down on this. I'd rather hope for the best thanks.

I hope for the best, also. Now you're accusing me of giving up the world to it's own pisshole? WHATEVER! But I also understand that evil WILL always exist in this world, we can marginalize its forms but it will always be there. Unless you're aware of some weapon or manmade development that got "un-invented", I'm accepting their existence, and working within the context of realistic pragmatism.

It's the little condescending things like that you say that really piss me off. I didn't say that at all I just said that because of my previous arguments they didn't apply BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM AND NO ONE HAS SOLVED THE INHERRANT PROBLEMS OF SUCH A SYSTEM. ffs...

National programs are always based off local models. Always. That's why you have "test markets" for new products. If the local model doesn't work, the national model will not be all that different.

And the single largest inherent problem that you're not going to be able to get around, is depriving people of civil liberties.

Having a document that was created many years in the past as an absolute is just not practicle. If you think the government is going to betray you at any moment you certainly shouldn't be paying taxes that partly go into funding the world's greatest military strength. You think that jet plane gives a sod about your revolver?

Yeah, civilians with small arms have no prayer against the might of the US military /Iraqi-Jordanian-Syrian "insurgents"

the US has some of the highest murder rates in the world, and that surely is a big problem to be looked at.

I'm sorry, did I say murder wasn't a problem? And you accuse ME of putting words in YOUR mouth? I have said that the solution should involve making people safer without depriving them of their rights, and I stand by that.

Also a culture that embraces the idea of safety by being well enough armed to take on the crime around it isn't going anywhere good. We should be trying to get rid of crime, and to effictively do that eventually the guns in the US will have to go. Is the lessening of crime also too utopian for you to consider?

Not at all. Which is why I'm very happy that murder and crime have been TRENDING DOWNWARD for the last TWENTY YEARS.

U're really getting on my nerves. I didn't say that in fact I have specifically said that by mentioning hunting and protection and yet you just carry on anyway putting words into my mouth as you have so many time in this argument. It's not even misunderstanding, I've said these things clearly and you just ignore them, and it's plain rude.

I'm sorry if it gets on your nerves. But understand that this is the argument I see when someone says even adaptations of guns are evil by proxy. Airowhatever said the same thing: fighter jets paved the way for passenger jet liners, the tools can always be used to benefit mankind as time goes on. The proverbial sword can be beaten into a plowshare.

Tazers aren't as lethal as guns are they? In fact damn tazers what about tranquiliser darts as protection? some kind of fast acting agent if hit? How is that a bad idea? Less death and still have protection. Makes murder that little bit harder whilst adding another level of protection against accidental death.

All well and good but again in violation of the principle of allowing people to decide their own destiny.

 

[Cap'n Beeb]

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

Surely if anyone know's their stuff and crime rates and whatnot, it'd be these folks.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

Surely if anyone know's their stuff and crime rates and whatnot, it'd be these folks.

Maybe if they had the golden artifact known as "Ye Clue".

Comparing crime statistics between gun-carrying and non-gun-carrying American states is worthless, because criminals will carry guns anyway. Only if the entire country bans firearms, thereby reducing the availability of them, can any worthwhile comparison be made.

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Maybe the University of Chicago should give me a professorship or something.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Why should be make it a goal to ban guns? Isn't it more fruitful to work towards the goal where they're hardly ever needed, rather than violating people's rights for the actions of a few?

Well that assumes two things, both of which i disagree with - that guns are not an intrinsic part of the problem, and that owning them is a right.

To stop gun crime you have to take the guns away from the criminals. But you can't know who is a criminal in all cases if some guns are legal. So you have to take them from all. To you this is a huge civil liberties issue but I don't see it as such because I don't think that the public should be allowed to own killing machines...not something adapted from killing machines, just killing machines.

Actually, what you SAID was that if it kills one child by accident, that's one death too many. By targeting guns, you are actually ignoring other areas that actually kill MORE PEOPLE. Is you goal to save lives, or just to ban guns? I'd prefer to save lives.

Well that's good, however you have to take on board practicality. Some things are needed for certain purposes and we should do all we can to make them safe, but if it gets in the way of practicality then you have to try to think of another way. This is why I wasn't suggesting an immediate ban of guns earlier...now though I have thought of dart guns instead so now I don't see any impracticality in banning something that is lethal.

But there's no evidence that criminals flock to gun-restricted areas. I'm not aware of career criminals that move to another part of the country to get better work, like they're engineers or something. Your point might be valid if there was any basis in logic or in fact to support it.

Logic: criminals have guns in an area where law abiding citizens don't and thus inflated crime levels from a society where guns are so wide-spread already. You've said this already and IVE SAID THIS SAME FOLLOWING POINT A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIMES that I DIDNT think a ban was practicle until a way was found around it. It is THE EXACT ANSWER to your question, so WHY THE HELL DO YOU KEEP MENTIONING IT?!?!?!? From now on I'm going to ignore this if you bring up the states where guns have been banned and rising gun crime because you've had the answer and if you aren't bothered reading it, then fine. Preach and don't discuss if you wish, but i'm not going to listen whilst im being ignored.

Unless you're aware of some weapon or manmade development that got "un-invented", I'm accepting their existence, and working within the context of realistic pragmatism.

There doesn't need to be a precident to create one.

National programs are always based off local models. Always. That's why you have "test markets" for new products. If the local model doesn't work, the national model will not be all that different.

That argument doesn't work in issues of poliferation.

And the single largest inherent problem that you're not going to be able to get around, is depriving people of civil liberties.

I don't think it is a right, just in the same way I don't think you should be free to steal or kill. There are freedom tos and freedom froms, and although taking of freedom tos should indeed be very closely looked at, that doesn't mean that they should never be taken.

Yeah, civilians with small arms have no prayer against the might of the US military /Iraqi-Jordanian-Syrian "insurgents"

Nowhere near the same...not even in the same ballpark. That is a military operation compared to your idea of the government deciding to make the country into a dictatorship...they would not have the same problems as in Iraq, if anyone got in the way, just drop bombs on them, damn the ground troops.

I'm sorry, did I say murder wasn't a problem? And you accuse ME of putting words in YOUR mouth?

Yes I do, and you're actually misreading what I said and doing it now. I never even remotely accused you of saying that, it was a statement.

Not at all. Which is why I'm very happy that murder and crime have been TRENDING DOWNWARD for the last TWENTY YEARS.

Which I would suspect is due to better policing or better gun controls or something...but I don't see how that is contradictory to anything I've said.

I'm sorry if it gets on your nerves. But understand that this is the argument I see when someone says even adaptations of guns are evil by proxy.

HA! you're not sorry, you keep doing it! I didn't say that anything different but developed from guns is evil at all, I said that guns were designed to kill - and they STILL ARE guns. they havent changed, evolved maybe, but not changed into some new machines designed specifically for something else. They are still death machines.

Airowhatever said the same thing: fighter jets paved the way for passenger jet liners, the tools can always be used to benefit mankind as time goes on. The proverbial sword can be beaten into a plowshare.

Jet fighters arent legal to the public. Is that a civil liberty problem? How about nuclear weapons...you never really clarified that in your argument either (specifically never explained why they should be unavailable to the public when it's the intention of the user, not the capability of the object).

All well and good but again in violation of the principle of allowing people to decide their own destiny.

OMG, i came up with a decent idea for a solution and that's what you give me? People deciding what to do is more important than people being alive? People DONT always get to decide their own destiny. Freedom tos, freedom froms. And if they can be protected whilst not having a killing machine, how is that a bad thing? really, how?

 

[W0RF]

Well that assumes two things, both of which i disagree with - that guns are not an intrinsic part of the problem, and that owning them is a right.

Well, the facts suggest an armed populace is not in as much danger as one with strict gun laws, and despite your repeated denial, owning guns IS a right in America. So the fact that you disagree with them doesn't change the simple truth of the matter.

To stop gun crime you have to take the guns away from the criminals.

That's not the same thing as taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

But you can't know who is a criminal in all cases if some guns are legal. So you have to take them from all.

Should we ban alcohol to get rid of drunk driving fatalities? We tried that once already, it was a disaster. You're only going to be able to take guns away from those who COMPLY with the law. Guess what: criminals don't comply with the law.

To you this is a huge civil liberties issue but I don't see it as such because I don't think that the public should be allowed to own killing machines...not something adapted from killing machines, just killing machines.

What you think has no bearing on a person's right to decide for themselves what they need.

Well that's good, however you have to take on board practicality. Some things are needed for certain purposes and we should do all we can to make them safe, but if it gets in the way of practicality then you have to try to think of another way.

I agree. So let's do all we can to make gun ownership as safe as possible.

This is why I wasn't suggesting an immediate ban of guns earlier...now though I have thought of dart guns instead so now I don't see any impracticality in banning something that is lethal.

Depriving people of civil liberties, unto itself, is impractical. And whether it's now or later, you cannot get away from the fact that this is your ultimate goal. Meanwhile, you are still acting as though guns are 100% lethal in every instance of their use. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Logic: criminals have guns in an area where law abiding citizens don't and thus inflated crime levels from a society where guns are so wide-spread already. You've said this already and IVE SAID THIS SAME FOLLOWING POINT A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIMES that I DIDNT think a ban was practicle until a way was found around it. It is THE EXACT ANSWER to your question, so WHY THE HELL DO YOU KEEP MENTIONING IT?!?!?!? From now on I'm going to ignore this if you bring up the states where guns have been banned and rising gun crime because you've had the answer and if you aren't bothered reading it, then fine. Preach and don't discuss if you wish, but i'm not going to listen whilst im being ignored.

I'm not ignoring you, I'm asking you to provide one iota of evidence that criminals actually migrate cross-country to commit crimes more conveniently.

That argument doesn't work in issues of poliferation.

Yes it does. Just about every national program is an extension of a local one. The federal welfare reform that Clinton passed was based on Tommy Thompson's model when he was still governor of Wisconsin. The local model was the basis for the national one, BECAUSE IT WORKED.

I don't think it is a right, just in the same way I don't think you should be free to steal or kill. There are freedom tos and freedom froms, and although taking of freedom tos should indeed be very closely looked at, that doesn't mean that they should never be taken.

What you think does not change the truth: it is a right in America. Stealing and killing actually harm and infringe upon other people. The mere ownership of a firearm is in no way comparable to an actual crime afflicted on another person.

Yes I do, and you're actually misreading what I said and doing it now. I never even remotely accused you of saying that, it was a statement.

It was a ridiculously obvious statement. Does anyone actually think murder's NOT a problem? My POINT, and I read your statement just FINE, is that we're not discussing MURDER, we're discussing GUNS. If you want to address murder problems, then you have to look at motives, social factors, gang mentality, etc etc etc. If you want to look ONLY at guns, then the problem of murder will continue long after all the guns are gone (except those acquired illegally in order to perpretrate a crime. You know, like Columbine?)

Which I would suspect is due to better policing or better gun controls or something...but I don't see how that is contradictory to anything I've said.

You say guns are part of the problem. But we have more guns and less violent crime. Even Michael Moore is honest enough to point out the murder rate is GOING DOWN. So it's contradictory to what you say because you are linking guns TO crime when the facts show exactly the opposite.

HA! you're not sorry, you keep doing it! etc etc etc

Look, if you're just going to blow off everything I say, I'm not going to bother trying to clarify what I'm saying. Is this going to be civil or isn't it?

Jet fighters arent legal to the public. Is that a civil liberty problem? How about nuclear weapons...you never really clarified that in your argument either (specifically never explained why they should be unavailable to the public when it's the intention of the user, not the capability of the object).

Actually, the pracitcalities of obtaining any of these items make it all but impossible for anyone to even acquire these. The radioactive material and jet fuel pose a particularly steep hurdle. People won't use these for protection if they're not practical. So quite frankly, the ban is more of a formality than anything, as I couldn't even get a jet legally.

OMG, i came up with a decent idea for a solution and that's what you give me? People deciding what to do is more important than people being alive? People DONT always get to decide their own destiny. Freedom tos, freedom froms. And if they can be protected whilst not having a killing machine, how is that a bad thing? really, how?

But you're not interested in people being alive, relatively speaking. You're primarily interested in the guns being gone, or else you would address FIRST the problems that KILL MORE PEOPLE. Frankly, I DON'T think your solution is practical anyway. Police are researching new non-lethal ways to stop criminals but they are all given a sidearm when they go on the street. The days of Minority Report are not yet upon us.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

I don't know about anyone else, but I think to save this thread from being the worst thread ever (and bear in mind this is the 625.7th thread on gun control) it needs to be turned into a drinking game.

Every meaningless digression: drink two fingers.

Every paragraph split up into separate quotes for ease of misinterpretation: one finger per extraneous quote.

Every pointless and ill-conducted survey quoted as gospel: down whole drink.

Saying the word "drink": three fingers. Use "consume" or "imbibe" instead.

Every accusation of missing the point without explaining what the point actually is (because the accuser forgot it himself): smash bottle on desk, slit wrists, sink into chair murmuring "The horror, the horror..."

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

despite your repeated denial, owning guns IS a right in America. So the fact that you disagree with them doesn't change the simple truth of the matter.

That's really petty arguing over language. I know that the law of america says owning guns is legal, and that an ancient bit of paper suggests they are a right, but im talking about what should not be a right, and what I believe naturally isn't and you know this. Seriously, stop it.

Should we ban alcohol to get rid of drunk driving fatalities? We tried that once already, it was a disaster. You're only going to be able to take guns away from those who COMPLY with the law. Guess what: criminals don't comply with the law.

Which is where policing comes in. It is the job of the state to remove them.

It is a scale. Should we ban all knives in order to stop stabbings? No, they are a tool. Should we ban alcohol to stop drunk driving? In my opinion, no, because I think that the effect of limiting inhibitions with alcohol can be useful, even in too much can make people unruley. Also many reports show that alcohol can be very good for you in moderate comsumption.

Guns have only one reason to be in people's houses as far as I can see: protection, and I think that dart guns are a decent solution to this problem (and you haven't tried to reason oherwise, just stated it is impracticle...why?) Other than that the only things that they are going to be there for is enjoyment of guns themselves and death, and the first isn't good enough to counter-balance the second.

What you think has no bearing on a person's right to decide for themselves what they need.

Freedom to's, freedom froms. What about the people who want to feel free from guns? That was a pretty pointless statement overall. As if it needs saying...just because I think something it isnt going to affect other people. However, it doesn't mean im not right.

I agree. So let's do all we can to make gun ownership as safe as possible.

Nope. As far as im concerned right now ive thought of another way and guns are unnecessary for protection in light of that and thus we should be moving to get rid of them totally.

Depriving people of civil liberties, unto itself, is impractical.

Freedom tos, freedom froms. society incorporates both, and so civil liberties becomes a matter of opinion. In this certain area I think guns should be in the freedom from catagory, you think freedom to, so either way your sentence there isn't going to wash.

I'm not ignoring you, I'm asking you to provide one iota of evidence that criminals actually migrate cross-country to commit crimes more conveniently.

you are ignoring me. You are plainly ignoring me. It's just too much. And then you go and say im the one being civil...it's a joke.

As I said, I don't think that it can work until it's national AND an alternative to using guns as deterants is found. AND AND AND AND AND. see the word? I've said it so many times. It makes your point completely irrelevent, because it isn't only about criminals crossing boarders it's also about protecting the citizens from the ones already there. AND. both points together. Not focusing on one and completely ignoring there was another to make up the full point.

Yes it does. Just about every national program is an extension of a local one. The federal welfare reform...

The federal welfare reform is not about poliferation. So to me that example is nothing to do with what I said. Because it isn't.

The mere ownership of a firearm is in no way comparable to an actual crime afflicted on another person.

No it isn't. However, if there are alternatives then they should be used and the guns got rid of because as long as they are around they will be misused or cause accidents. This has always been my point.

If you want to look ONLY at guns, then the problem of murder will continue long after all the guns are gone (except those acquired illegally in order to perpretrate a crime. You know, like Columbine?)

we're discussing GUNS.

You answered your own question. Why am I focusing on guns? Cos that's what the thread was about!

You say guns are part of the problem. But we have more guns and less violent crime. Even Michael Moore is honest enough to point out the murder rate is GOING DOWN. So it's contradictory to what you say because you are linking guns TO crime when the facts show exactly the opposite

Erm...only if you chose to read them in that way. In fact they just don't say that. You have more guns and more murder because of it. You can't attribute the murder rate going down to guns...the guns were there before. And i'm not just linking guns to crime, guns ARE linked to crime. Criminals use them...as you've repeatedly said.

What you aluded to is that guns save lives by the threat of them. But that falls under protection and I have said over and over and over that guns shouldnt be removed in the US until there was suitible protection, but you consistently ignore that ive said that with points like this.

Look, if you're just going to blow off everything I say, I'm not going to bother trying to clarify what I'm saying. Is this going to be civil or isn't it?

That would be kind of funny if it wasn't for the plain wrongness of you saying it after being constantly rude and condescending. What's even worse is you say that after a paragraph that is a result of you doing just that.

It started with you saying this:

"Tasers were adapted from regular guns. Any adaptation of a machine designed to kill is pure evil"

which I have never said. In fact I have specifically said that adaptations are fine but the gun is not an adaptation of guns (surprisingly) and what they were for is what I had the problem with.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ADAPTATIONS FOR A GOOD PURPOSE ARE BAD. And yet you put the words into my mouth.

What I basically said to this was:

"I never said that - im getting pissed off you're saying I did after ive specifically said I havent before"

To which you replied with:

"I'm sorry if it gets on your nerves. But understand that this is the argument I see when someone says even adaptations of guns are evil by proxy."

You say sorry. BUT THEN you say that your point was justified because of my argument that not only never existed, but I had just told you as much in the quote you were responding to!

So I say that you can't be sorry since you're doing the same thing...and yet again I clearly say that I never put forward the argument that any adaptations of something military were automatically bad. FOR THE THIRD TIME.

And you actually post that in responce. After three times of me saying the same thing and you still ignoring it. And you ask if we're going to be CIVIL!?!?!?!?!? OMG ARE YOU DELIBERATELY TRYING TO DO THIS TO ME?!?!?!?

People won't use these for protection if they're not practical. So quite frankly, the ban is more of a formality than anything, as I couldn't even get a jet legally.

It's not a formality, it's a ban. I'm sure that if there wasn't a ban there are some people who could afford it fine and probably quite a few who would do it...afterall, having a nuclear deterrent in your house would worry a robber more than a shotgun.

The point is you're moaning about civil liberty on these points and I'm saying why aren't you complaining about these 'civil liberties' being denied you?

But you're not interested in people being alive, relatively speaking. You're primarily interested in the guns being gone, or else you would address FIRST the problems that KILL MORE PEOPLE.

we're discussing GUNS.

You answered your own question. Why am I focusing on guns? Cos that's what the thread was about!

 

[W0RF]

That's really petty arguing over language. I know that the law of america says owning guns is legal, and that an ancient bit of paper suggests they are a right, but im talking about what should not be a right, and what I believe naturally isn't and you know this. Seriously, stop it.

The right to defend yourself and your home is not natural? I'm not arguing over language, I'm telling you that's the principle, plain and simple. People have a right to defend themselves, and the Constitution established as a matter of course that in America, the government is not going to take that right away from you. Period.

Guns have only one reason to be in people's houses as far as I can see: protection, and I think that dart guns are a decent solution to this problem (and you haven't tried to reason oherwise, just stated it is impracticle...why?) Other than that the only things that they are going to be there for is enjoyment of guns themselves and death, and the first isn't good enough to counter-balance the second.

It's impractical because they are more difficult to generally operate than a gun, which puts an armed criminal at an extreme advantage.

"Gimme your dough"
"Wait, let me grab this thing here... and load the dart... and set it... then I gotta do this thing here... and..."
BLAM

Let me put it in another light. If there was something out there that was BETTER and MORE EFFECTIVE than a gun, it would be on the market and people would be buying them up like crazy, to gain a tactical advantage to a gun-weilding criminal. That's simple economics.

Freedom to's, freedom froms. What about the people who want to feel free from guns? That was a pretty pointless statement overall. As if it needs saying...just because I think something it isnt going to affect other people. However, it doesn't mean im not right.

Free from guns? I am not held captive by a gun. I am not ruled over by a gun. I don't fear being shot by one, neither do I feel the need to keep one at home to feel secure. So how am I not free "from" a gun?

Also, whether you are right or not (a highly debateable point), you still don't get to tell other people how to live their lives. That's what rights are all about.

Nope. As far as im concerned right now ive thought of another way and guns are unnecessary for protection in light of that and thus we should be moving to get rid of them totally.

Go ahead and plug your ears if it will make you feel better, but you can't possibly believe that distributing dart guns to the populace is going to make firearms obsolete. If you want guns to stop being a problem, making them obsolete is far more effective than trying to take them away from people who have done nothing to deserve it. Are spears illegal weapons? Swords? Bows? Axes? Knives? No? Then why don't we see more people killed by arrows in this country? Obsolescence. When something comes along that's actually more effective than a gun, its proliferation will render guns obsolete both as a criminal tool and a protective one.

Here's another example. Cops doing crowd control use rubber bullets to deter people without killing them. But rubber bullets can still penetrate and be lethal under the proper circumstances. You can kill somebody with just about anything if you want to badly enough. Maybe just a bit of laundry detergent in that dart gun and they won't be waking up, well, ever.

Freedom tos, freedom froms. society incorporates both, and so civil liberties becomes a matter of opinion. In this certain area I think guns should be in the freedom from catagory, you think freedom to, so either way your sentence there isn't going to wash.

The 2nd Amendment IS a freedom from. It's a freedom FROM the government removing your right to self-defense by force of law, just like the 1st is a freedom FROM censorship and the 4th is a freedom FROM an invasion of a private home. Leaving all that aside, if someone USED to be allowed to do something, then they're NOT, they are deprived of that liberty. My sentence is plain, complete, and 100% accurate.

you are ignoring me. You are plainly ignoring me. It's just too much. And then you go and say im the one being civil...it's a joke.

I'm asking you to support your statement. You say criminals go to gun-restricted areas and that's why the crime rate is higher. SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT.

As I said, I don't think that it can work until it's national AND an alternative to using guns as deterants is found. AND AND AND AND AND. see the word? I've said it so many times. It makes your point completely irrelevent, because it isn't only about criminals crossing boarders it's also about protecting the citizens from the ones already there. AND. both points together. Not focusing on one and completely ignoring there was another to make up the full point.

If you really want to include that second half, all it does is negate your statement. If you're talking about the criminals already there, then you disarm the citizens and crime goes up, and you say that it's because of the criminals already there, then obviosuly gun control doesn't reduce crime, gun or otherwise. If you say it's because of migratory criminals, all I ask is that you demonstrate that they actually do that.

The federal welfare reform is not about poliferation. So to me that example is nothing to do with what I said. Because it isn't.

See above. Sorry if you don't agree with me about local models, but it happens to be true.

No it isn't. However, if there are alternatives then they should be used and the guns got rid of because as long as they are around they will be misused or cause accidents. This has always been my point.

What you said was that the accidents supercede all your other reasoning. The accidents alone are reason enough to get rid of guns, you said. But accidents alone are not reason enough for you to call for a ban on other things that kill more people?

You answered your own question. Why am I focusing on guns? Cos that's what the thread was about!

The thread is about guns, but when you start talking about accidents superceding all other reasons to ban guns, but you don't call for a ban on other things that kill more people, you're not being consistent in your logic. If the answer is to make homes more fireproof, and the answer is to seal swimming pools better, and the answer is to childproof a stove or electric socket, then the answer is to MAKE GUNS SAFER from accidents.

Erm...only if you chose to read them in that way. In fact they just don't say that. You have more guns and more murder because of it. You can't attribute the murder rate going down to guns...the guns were there before. And i'm not just linking guns to crime, guns ARE linked to crime. Criminals use them...as you've repeatedly said.

First of all, more guns does not equal more murder. I've run out of examples. Florida has conceal-carry, their crime rate is down, and there have been like 8 incidents statewide in 10 years. DC has practically no guns, and rampant crime. CANADA has MORE GUNS and LESS CRIME. Nationally we have more guns and less violent crime. So how does more guns equal more murder, when there are countless facts that say exactly the opposite?

Law abiding citizens use them 4,000 times a day for lawful purposes. How are those linked to crime? Aren't those linked to crime PREVENTION? Thus, doesn't that make them tools of the protectorate? Thus, aren't guns inherently good?

What you aluded to is that guns save lives by the threat of them. But that falls under protection and I have said over and over and over that guns shouldnt be removed in the US until there was suitible protection, but you consistently ignore that ive said that with points like this.

That might have something to do with the fact that there's nothing more effective, especially when squaring off with... another gun.

That would be kind of funny if it wasn't for the plain wrongness of you saying it after being constantly rude and condescending. What's even worse is you say that after a paragraph that is a result of you doing just that.

Every time you reply to one of my posts, you accuse me of being condescending. Condescending condescending condescending blah blah blah. You and I have had this discussion before. When I make my statements short and to the point, people don't get the reasoning that I apply to reach that conclusion. When I make them broad and general, people say I don't know what I'm talking about. And on and on and on. What you read today is the end result of my constant refinement of posting on these boards.

I am going to say things as directly and as simply as I can. I am going to explain them in exhaustive detail. I am going to cite sources whenever I can. I am going to ask leading questions to tie one point to another. If you find that condescending, fine. I can't do anything about that. But I am going to make every effort to make sure my point gets across, and that if someone reads it wrong, they would have to be trying to do it.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ADAPTATIONS FOR A GOOD PURPOSE ARE BAD. And yet you put the words into my mouth.

...

Firstly, although it is the intent of the user that commits an act that is bad, where the object comes from itself means that it is not a good thing. These are machines that came from the desire to kill other people more effectively and thus have a more powerful army. They were made for the killing of human beings. Any other use is an adaptation.

This doesn’t mean that the adaptations are invalid, but you have to remember that the object was adapted from a pure instrument of death.

When you take a gun, and rig it to shoot or otherwise convey an electrical charge, that is an adaptation. Which is exactly what you say here.

You say sorry. BUT THEN you say that your point was justified because of my argument that not only never existed, but I had just told you as much in the quote you were responding to!

I said I was sorry that you took it that way. I didn't say I wanted to take it back.

And you actually post that in responce. After three times of me saying the same thing and you still ignoring it. And you ask if we're going to be CIVIL!?!?!?!?!? OMG ARE YOU DELIBERATELY TRYING TO DO THIS TO ME?!?!?!?

I don't know. When you say my points are stupid, are you deliberately trying to do that to me? When you say the only reason I want guns to be legal is because I supposedly like them, and think the whole world would be better if we all just got us some guns and maybe some jet fighters and nuclear bombs, are you deliberately trying to do that to me?

It's not a formality, it's a ban. I'm sure that if there wasn't a ban there are some people who could afford it fine and probably quite a few who would do it...afterall, having a nuclear deterrent in your house would worry a robber more than a shotgun.

The point is you're moaning about civil liberty on these points and I'm saying why aren't you complaining about these 'civil liberties' being denied you?

Having a nuclear deterrent in your house would make the place uninhabitable for 10,000 years. That's not protection. Seriously, are you actually trying to compare a gun to a rare, prohibitively expensive, extremely difficult to maintain weapon of mass destruction?

In fact, don't even bother answering this question, because I never said anything about people owning nuclear bombs as a matter of course. So I'm moving on.

To address your last point (again), guns are the topic, but you fail to explain why you are not applying your logic consistently to avoid more accidents and save more lives. You obviously believe there is a way to make those things safer to prevent accidents, so again, why not make guns safer, to prevent accidents? Frankly, anyone not keeping their ammo locked in a separate cabinet is already applying for a Darwin award.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

The right to defend yourself and your home is not natural?

I never did not that. I'm saying that the public should not have such easy access to objects that give them even more power over the lives and deaths of other people than modern society unfortunately already brings, unless there are valid reasons. At the moment there is a vaild reason in protection, but in the long run I believe that guns should be circumnavigated and got rid of.

This has been my same answer post after post even though you kieep asking me question about it. It's not an ambiguous position, so I don't know where that question came from.

People have a right to defend themselves, and the Constitution established as a matter of course that in America, the government is not going to take that right away from you. Period.

lol. Adding 'period' to the end of something doesn't mean it can't be argued against. If a suitable alternative is put into operation (which I believe I have thought of) then thre is no real need for guns, I don't care what an old bit of paper from another age has to say on the matter.

And again, if the government or the military went ape****, all the armed citizens of the US wouldn't have a chance.

It's impractical because they are more difficult to generally operate than a gun, which puts an armed criminal at an extreme advantage.

"Gimme your dough"
"Wait, let me grab this thing here... and load the dart... and set it... then I gotta do this thing here... and..."
BLAM

I don't see why that is a problem, it doesnt have to be a standard dart gun as they're use now for animals, I don't see why they can't be developed into something much like normal guns are now. This should also lead to more arrests if the criminals are disabled...people will be more inclined to shoot if their ammunition is not lethal and so it's possible less criminals will just end up running off.

Free from guns? I am not held captive by a gun. I am not ruled over by a gun. I don't fear being shot by one, neither do I feel the need to keep one at home to feel secure. So how am I not free "from" a gun?

Free from the danger of guns. And whether you feel it or have experienced it or not, it exists.

Also, whether you are right or not (a highly debateable point), you still don't get to tell other people how to live their lives. That's what rights are all about.

I don't (obviously) but the government does (laws). It is a democratic government's responsibilty to protect it's citizens, and if a none lethal protection against criminals can work, then this will quite obviously happen.

Go ahead and plug your ears if it will make you feel better, but you can't possibly believe that distributing dart guns to the populace is going to make firearms obsolete...When something comes along that's actually more effective than a gun, its proliferation will render guns obsolete both as a criminal tool and a protective one.

Just because I believe that dart guns are a good idea you can't accuse me of not listening...especially when you've been so plainly ignoring what I've been saying.

I don't believe that dart guns would force guns into being obselete. Beyond the practicle purposes, there are people who just like guns. They like the power, the cool factor of that power...whatever - the point is they wouldn't go completely, which is why I am saying that they should be surplanted.

You can kill somebody with just about anything if you want to badly enough.

Completely agreed, but then I'm not arguing that it is perfect, just far preferable. You are saying that law abiding people want protection and don't want to kill people, well here's a much better way of trying to get closer to that goal.

Leaving all that aside, if someone USED to be allowed to do something, then they're NOT, they are deprived of that liberty. My sentence is plain, complete, and 100% accurate.

It is indeed, but only in a very narrow and very naive understanding of the word liberty. We live in societies, thus there are rules that govern them otherwise they wouldn't be societies, they would be anarchy. Liberty is freedom, but again, it doesn't have to be solely freedom to's. When something affects other people it may just come into the freedom from area.

I'm asking you to support your statement. You say criminals go to gun-restricted areas and that's why the crime rate is higher. SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT.

You are unbelievable! You are just having your own argument in your head loosely based on words I've used with no context what-so-ever.

I am going to make this ever so clear (and this may seem condescending, but I'm sorry, I'll now be saying this for the forth time, so I have to do it like this):

I do not believe that a mass exodus of criminals occur.

In fact, I didn't include criminal movement in anything I said. You created this concept.

What I did say, and I have continued to say, is that I don't think that a statewide ban will work at all at the moment.

The first point of this was that gun movement is obviously going to be easier into regulated zones when they are surrounded by de-regulated zones. I don't care if this is a relitively insignificant number, it's an obviously logical point.

However, this point is largely insignificant in my fury that you have repeated ignored the 'AND' part of what I said on this matter. It was conditional, hence the 'and', but you've continually spoken about it as a single point idea (and even that was completely mis-represented and exaggerated).

The AND that you have ignored, was that nothing was going to happen in these situations because the public had no alternative to protect themselves with, which I have consistantly said is needed in the US. Until this half of the conditional statement is met then the first half is largely irrelevent.

If you really want to include that second half, all it does is negate your statement. If you're talking about the criminals already there, then you disarm the citizens and crime goes up, and you say that it's because of the criminals already there, then obviosuly gun control doesn't reduce crime, gun or otherwise. If you say it's because of migratory criminals, all I ask is that you demonstrate that they actually do that.

Well I think it is pretty clear that I don't think that there is a some massive migration of criminals now. Or any migration for that fact.

I can see the way you are thinking, but you are failing to see some key points. JUST taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not decrease gun crime, which is pretty obvious because you can't be law abiding and commit a crime.

However, if guns are surplanted, it makes it that bit easier to tell who the law abiding citizens are and who the criminals are, as any gun is an illegal gun. Thus gun crime should be easier to fight and should thus drop. It may not be easy to fight against illegal arms still, but I hope that you'd agree that any improvment is a good thing.

What you said was that the accidents supercede all your other reasoning. The accidents alone are reason enough to get rid of guns, you said. But accidents alone are not reason enough for you to call for a ban on other things that kill more people?

It's practicality. Some things are needed and impracticle to get rid of, although they should be as safe as possible. Also these are things designed to be useful. Guns are designed to kill. They have a reason to be there now, but if you have got rid of that reason then all you have left is something that might be fun but kills people (like class A drugs). So ban it.

The thread is about guns, but when you start talking about accidents superceding all other reasons to ban guns, but you don't call for a ban on other things that kill more people, you're not being consistent in your logic.

As I have said above I believe that is a consistent view. Ban what is useful only for killing, keep but make safe as much as possible other things that ARE useful.

Also you asked why I was focusing on guns before other things that kill, and I just pointed out that the thread was about guns and so that was the subject I was focusing on. I didn't ignore your point, I answered it and I don't see a problem with what I think on the matter so I don't see why I should change it.

So how does more guns equal more murder, when there are countless facts that say exactly the opposite?

Because the facts do not say that, the facts say that less legal guns with no suitable form of alternative protection means more murder.

If suddenly all guns disappeared off the face of the Earth, there would be a significant fall in murder rates, which is pretty obvious, so the figures only focus on legal ownership keeping murder down in the face of criminal gun crime, which is something I have not argued against.

Law abiding citizens use them 4,000 times a day for lawful purposes. How are those linked to crime? Aren't those linked to crime PREVENTION? Thus, doesn't that make them tools of the protectorate? Thus, aren't guns inherently good?

Something that was designed to be used take like in the most efficient way possible can never be an inherrently good thing.

However, this does not mean that the application of such objects to safeguard life is not a good thing.

But these are still lethal objects and if they can thus be surplanted by none lethal objects then that is a good thing.

Every time you reply to one of my posts, you accuse me of being condescending...When I make my statements short and to the point, people don't get the reasoning that I apply to reach that conclusion. When I make them broad and general, people say I don't know what I'm talking about...is the end result of my constant refinement of posting on these boards.

That's because you are condescending and rude. Or at least, the style of your posts are. If you want to prove people wrong you don't have to talk down to them. It can be hard to do, but it is possible, I have done it here even though at times i've been really insensed at some of your comments.

'In other words, facts don't concern you'...'Go ahead and plug your ears if it will make you feel better'...'Hobbyist's collection. Next'....'you go right ahead and do that'...'You make a good point. There are certainly no illegal drugs being shipped to or grown in this country'...'News flash, Phoenix'...'Unless you've discovered some magical bullet that automatically kills a human being every time a gun is fired'

and then edited to be more polite:

You are ignoring the facts...you are ignoring the point...They can be collected by hobbyists....you could try but it wouldn't work...There are certainly no illegal drugs being shipped to or grown in this country'...Phoenix,'...'Bullets don't automatically kill human beings every time a gun is fired'

All examples of the types of things you say that make you seem condescending. When you are directly criticising and trying to keep an argument civil it is unwise to couple sarcasm with what you say. Or just dismiss people as if they are irrelevent or use as I know you like to do with some other people.

If you find that condescending, fine.

I have no problem with you trying to argue, I have a problem with your condescending style (referenced above) but much more so your tendency in this thread to take exactly what I've said, then tell me I have said something different or just make up something new that I have said.

When you take a gun, and rig it to shoot or otherwise convey an electrical charge, that is an adaptation. Which is exactly what you say here.

Indeed, but then I never said that adaptations were necessarily bad.

I don't know. When you say my points are stupid, are you deliberately trying to do that to me? When you say the only reason I want guns to be legal is because I supposedly like them...

I don't say that your points are stupid, I just think you are wrong and so am presenting my side. However, I am on the defensive here, and it is mainly because what I have actually said is being ignored or taked out of all context no matter how clearly or how many times I state it.

It don't think you are stupid, but when things like this happen I start to assume that you might have some problem with understanding certain kinds of word orders or phrases. In that case I wouldn't mind repeating myself, but I don't know that so I have to assume that you are being rude. Thus much anger.

Having a nuclear deterrent in your house would make the place uninhabitable for 10,000 years. That's not protection. Seriously, are you actually trying to compare a gun to a rare, prohibitively expensive, extremely difficult to maintain weapon of mass destruction?

It's the sliding scale form of arguing.

You used it earlier by saying about all the other objects that kill people and asking if we should ban all of them as well. It's using exaggeration to try and highlight a point.

Now I think it would be bloody stupid to let people have nuclear weapons, obviously.

But you have being arguing that no one has a right to be told what they cant own, where as im trying to highlight that there are obvious cases where that isn't true, such as the nuclear weapons and fighter plane examples, and also drugs applies to it as well.

Liberty is freedom, but again, it doesn't have to be solely freedom to's. When something affects other people it may just come into the freedom from area.

You obviously believe there is a way to make those things safer to prevent accidents, so again, why not make guns safer, to prevent accidents? Frankly, anyone not keeping their ammo locked in a separate cabinet is already applying for a Darwin award.

Because I don't believe there is need to just make them safer, I now believe that they could just be got rid of and if my idea would work then that would be justified by their lack of necessity any more.

If there was a practicle and much safer form of vehicle transport designed and cars were still causing death, I'd want them banned to. That's not to say I wouldn't feel for the car enthusiasts at all, Id say that we should have centres where they keep cars you can drive, just as I would't object to gun centres where people who love guns could go and fire at things, but that would be the limit of my concession.

I wonder what happens when a post is so long that a single page cant support it...