Why Do People Think They Need A Gun?

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You started.

Anyway, i made my point, and see we get no further as i see your counter points as flawed.

It's not that i don't want to debate, i just see your points as silly, thereby a waste of time.

So despite the facts I've posted, you can dismiss my entire argument because you think it's "silly"?

Okay.

a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

uhh what the heck are you talking about, pro gun people want LESS regulations. not more.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Well, no deaths would be nice, but that is impossible, so eliminate the ones that can be eliminated relatively easy, or avoid worsening the problem.

But as i said, you can't fix the gun violence in the US, it's to late.

I agree with you and I think a couple who are arguing against you miss the point.

As I said earlier, in a perfect society guns wouldn't be necessary because bad people wouldn't exist. The only reasons for owning a gun then would be leisurely activities and hunting. Oh what a wonderful world that would be.

Unfortunately, bad people do exist and they tend to use whatever tool is most effective for committing their heinous acts. In this country, it is often firearms because they're the ultimate equalizer. Due to this fact, a well-prepared individual typically chooses to take up arms to defend against bad people.

Guns are so pervasive in our society that no law or ban will influence the ability of bad people to do bad things with deadly weapons. Gun laws and bans will only disarm the law-abiding person who wishes to defend against the bad people.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Right, and I have acknowledged that they are separate issues. I'm asking why treat the one issue that results in LESS deaths with more urgency than the other issue that results in MORE deaths? You don't see politicians on TV talking about road deaths, or car ownership. And that's why I think it's hypocritical.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Right, and I have acknowledged that they are separate issues. I'm asking why treat the one issue that results in LESS deaths with more urgency than the other issue that results in MORE deaths? You don't see politicians on TV talking about road deaths, or car ownership. And that's why I think it's hypocritical.

I think the problem is that you don't see a difference between unwise use of a tool(car) with a deliberate(sometimes accidental) use of another(gun).

a reply to: Mianeye

Those stats mean nothing. What you really need to break it down into is how many of those deaths were from justified self defense, how many were criminals already breaking the law, etc.

Numbers mean nothing out of context. I live in the greater Cincinnati area, and I'm serious when I say that I hear about a new shooting probably every three days. You know what they all have in common? They are crimes committed by criminals with no respect for human life.

What I have yet to hear about--at least to my memory--is a law-abiding CCDW-holding citizen going and shooting up people just because he has a gun and can do it. It's not the general public that is the hazard, it's the general criminals that are, and like is said ad naseum, but is the truth--they'll get a gun, regardless of the laws restricting gun ownership.

Those numbers mean diddly squat for this conversation, other than the foundation from which much more in-depth statistics need to be derived.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

When driverless cars become the norm, you won't have that argument to use anymore. I'll bet deaths by auto accidents will be reduced by 98%. However, I can imagine the pro-gun crowd will fight to the death their ability to drive their own cars anyway. Hmmm. Go figure.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Here is a fact for you, as an unarmed person you would most likely be a complete failure at disarming people that have no intention of being disarmed.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Right, and I have acknowledged that they are separate issues. I'm asking why treat the one issue that results in LESS deaths with more urgency than the other issue that results in MORE deaths? You don't see politicians on TV talking about road deaths, or car ownership. And that's why I think it's hypocritical.

I think the problem is that you don't see a difference between unwise use of a tool(car) with a deliberate(sometimes accidental) use of another(gun).

But cars have been, and will continue to be used as tools of violence. Yes, a great majority of car deaths are accidental, but there are those that are not. A decent chunk of gun deaths are accidental too. Which is kind of my point. Any tool (guns, cars) can be used for violence, and accidental deaths DO happen. I'm not disputing that guns aren't responsible for more INTENTIONAL violence, but politicians don't talk about car ownership and deaths like it's a hotbutton issue, even though they cause more death. It seems odd to me. Gun may be responsible for more INTENTIONAL death, but... I dunno, it just seems like why talk about one when there are tools that kill more people per year by a few mutiples.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Right, and I have acknowledged that they are separate issues. I'm asking why treat the one issue that results in LESS deaths with more urgency than the other issue that results in MORE deaths? You don't see politicians on TV talking about road deaths, or car ownership. And that's why I think it's hypocritical.

I think the problem is that you don't see a difference between unwise use of a tool(car) with a deliberate(sometimes accidental) use of another(gun).

What difference does the motive make to the person that dies?

Saying gun control is about the number of deaths is pandering to the simple minded.

ByTheWay- laws always have unintended consequences. After wearing seat belts were made mandatory, pedestrians and cyclists were hit more often

Statisticians found that 421 fewer drivers and 235 fewer front-seat passengers were killed than during the preceding
20-month period. However, the number of pedestrians killed by automobiles rose by 77, and the number of bicyclists by 63.
The death rate for back-seat passengers also rose; 69 more of them were killed than during the 20 months prior to the
seat-belt law.

The New Scientist also reported that a 1981 paper, suppressed by the Department of Transportation, had predicted just such
a development. The author, John Adams, a lecturer at University College, London, forecast that newly seat-belted drivers,
regarding themselves as safer than they had been without belts, would tend to drive more dangerously. Mr. Adams went on to
predict an alarming increase in pedestrian deaths.

Whatever the case, New Scientist says, the elevated fatality rate for pedestrians is probably significant. The rate had
declined steadily during the 10 years prior to the seat-belt law of 1983, at which point the trend was reversed.
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Here is a fact for you, as an unarmed person you would most likely be a complete failure at disarming people that have no intention of being disarmed.

Pfft. You need a gun to disarm? And who said anything about disarming. An unarmed person against someone with a weapon? Knives are more popular in Canada. Let's see how long they can stand with a solid blow to the throat. That doesn't require a gun. I still like mine though.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

When driverless cars become the norm, you won't have that argument to use anymore. I'll bet deaths by auto accidents will be reduced by 98%. However, I can imagine the pro-gun crowd will fight to the death their ability to drive their own cars anyway. Hmmm. Go figure.

There should always be an option for manual override, even in completely safe driverless cars. I work in Computer Science, so I know how that system will be abused for all sorts of purposes by people (assassinations, political deaths, just making someone "disappear") with rather rudimentary hacking skills. For instance, one could hack the system to believe the brakes were being applied, when in fact it was the accelerator being used.

I'll stand next to those gun nuts who want to maintain a manual override option with driverless cars.

trying to convince an american that guns are the problem i may as well talk to a brick wall so i aint even going to try.

all i,ll say is where i stay in the last 15 years i,ve heard of 2 gun crimes,now i maybe way off but it mite be fact that not everyone carrys a gun.

i know thats probably just crazy.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Here is a fact for you, as an unarmed person you would most likely be a complete failure at disarming people that have no intention of being disarmed.

Pfft. You need a gun to disarm? And who said anything about disarming. An unarmed person against someone with a weapon? Knives are more popular in Canada. Let's see how long they can stand with a solid blow to the throat. That doesn't require a gun. I still like mine though.

Oh, so if a law was passed outlawing guns in the US, do you suppose the gun collectors will bring knives on that mission?
Why do armies use guns, when those awesome, superior knives are available?

How would your arm reach from the property line to my throat when I am in the third floor window aiming a rifle at your noggin? Stretch Armstrong?

originally posted by: sparky31
trying to convince an american that guns are the problem i may as well talk to a brick wall so i aint even going to try.

all i,ll say is where i stay in the last 15 years i,ve heard of 2 gun crimes,now i maybe way off but it mite be fact that not everyone carrys a gun.

i know thats probably just crazy.

Dude you're talking to someone who has spent the last 5 years in Japan. I could count the Gun deaths this year on one hand. (Probably, I won't bother looking it up)

But I still recognize that the issue of Guns in America is something that CAN'T be "solved" (if a solution even exists) without killing millions of people. The best they can do is enact some common sense measures to gun ownership (Like no guns if you're a crazy person or a felon) that most responsible gun owners would agree with. Despite the near-constant baying by the 2nd amendment crowd, nobody, (no, not even OBAMA) can take your guns from you. There would be a long, bloody revolution if that ever came to pass, and no sitting U.S. President would give that order, and I doubt 90% of the U.S. soldiers would follow those orders.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What facts, you mean your comparisons, i don't see them as relevant towards the gun violence, as i have explained further back.

Again different issues, that ARE treated independently.

Here is a fact for you, as an unarmed person you would most likely be a complete failure at disarming people that have no intention of being disarmed.

Pfft. You need a gun to disarm? And who said anything about disarming. An unarmed person against someone with a weapon? Knives are more popular in Canada. Let's see how long they can stand with a solid blow to the throat. That doesn't require a gun. I still like mine though.

Oh, so if a law was passed outlawing guns in the US, do you suppose the gun collectors will bring knives on that mission?
Why do armies use guns, when those awesome, superior knives are available?

How would your arm reach from the property line to my throat when I am in the third floor window aiming a rifle at your noggin? Stretch Armstrong?

Awww and his arms stretch out to next week!

a reply to: Answer

Excellent examples of the need for a gun, and S&F for the thread. All considered, I wonder why anyone believes they don't need a gun!

originally posted by: butcherguy
How would your arm reach from the property line to my throat when I am in the third floor window aiming a rifle at your noggin? Stretch Armstrong?

Hey. I wasn't against your gun right but you still had to go all..... imo stupid.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Manual override option makes sense, just like making sure that children under the age of 10 are always supervised while outside, just to make sure that nothing horrible happens to them, right?