Is It Time For At Least Some To "Woman Up And Disarm"?

[MobBoss]

I still don't see how anything you say actually counter my point. A gun is still a lethal weapon able to kill with extreme ease (the only reason it was actually invented in fact), it gives power to the ones using it, and considering it has no place in a home is a perfectly reasonable request. You may disagree with it, but we can disagree with things and still admit they are reasonable.

No, I guess I dont think its responsible for one spouse to assume the other is going to be grossly irresponsible with a gun. Its just a tool, nothing more, nothing less, and is only as effective as the person using it.

To me, denying someone that tool if they want one is just silly. I mean to me its just as silly as denying steak knives in the home. Per your logic steak knives should be denied as well - I mean, arent they designed for only one purpose - to cut flesh with extreme ease? Well, yeah. But pretty much everyone would say a spouse denying the other a set of steak knives would be pretty silly. That's how I feel about someone doing the same with a gun.

Btw, according to the FBI database, more people are killed with knives in the USA than assault weapons. Did you know that?

Edit: to clarify a point.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Btw, according to the FBI database, more people are killed with knives in the USA than guns. Did you know that?

You mean this FBI "database"?

Weapons

Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders. (Based on Table 2.9.)

 

[MobBoss]

You mean what absurd straw men you continue to promulgate, while not even understanding yourself that the Second Amendment gives you no "right" to own assault weapons?

How about you? Would you be willing to admit that Americans should be able to own assault weapons so they can overthrow a tyrannical government, as Kochman has done?

I think americans should be able to own them for whatever reason they want to own them. As an investment, home defense, target shooting fun, or whatever.

You see, I dont automatically assume anyone wanting to own one is an irresponsible disturbed whacko. I also know that there simply isnt that much difference in what you call an AW and any other modern sem-automatic rifle. Its like trying to ban Cadillacs while allowing other GM brands to be sold. It's silly not to mention grossly ignorant.

 

[MobBoss]

You mean this FBI "database"?

Oh, I'm sorry. I mistated the meme. More people are killed by knives or hammers than with Assault Weapons.

From the link you provided:

....4.2 percent involved rifles

You know, the rifles you want to ban so much. Oh, and that 4.2 percent is all rifles, so the percentage done by what you would call assault weapons is even lower than that.

And thanks for finding the link for me. Gotcha.

http://www.examiner.com/article/fbi...hammers-clubs-fists-than-with-rifles-shotguns

According to FBI crime statistics, more people were killed with hammers, knives, clubs and fists than with rifles between 2005 and 2011, Breitbart.com reported Thursday.

"This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course," Awr Hawkins wrote.

In 2005, for example, 445 murders involved rifles while 608 were committed with clubs or hammers. 905 murders were committed with "personal weapons" like hands and feet. Knives were used in 1,920 murders that year and shotguns were involved in 522 murders. Handguns, however, accounted for 7,565 murders that year.

In 2011, rifles were used in 323 murders, while personal weapons accounted for 726. Blunt objects were used in 496 murders while knives accounted for 1,694. Handguns accounted for 6,220 murders.

Looking at the FBI statistics, one also notices a downward trend in all of the numbers, from the total murders reported, to the number of murders involving firearms.

"While the FBI makes it clear that some of the 'murder by rifle' numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle," Hawkins added.

"The bottom line," Hawkins added, is that a ban on "assault" rifles "is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick."

Perhaps Feinstein and her allies would be better off demanding that kitchen knives and bare hands be registered, requiring everyone to undergo training in their proper use.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

EDIT: dang..where'd he go?

 

[Akka]

No, I guess I dont think its responsible for one spouse to assume the other is going to be grossly irresponsible with a gun. Its just a tool, nothing more, nothing less, and is only as effective as the person using it.

Actually, it's much more effective than the person using it, which is precisely the problem.
Also, I don't see how not wanting a weapon is equal to assume that someone will be irresponsible with it, it's only a point of either (or both) principles and accidents. I'm pretty sure you understand fully the entire idea of "better safe than sorry" when it's not concerning things you have a fetish about.

To me, denying someone that tool if they want one is just silly. I mean to me its just as silly as denying steak knives in the home. Per your logic steak knives should be denied as well - I mean, arent they designed for only one purpose - to cut flesh with extreme ease? Well, yeah. But pretty much everyone would say a spouse denying the other a set of steak knives would be pretty silly. That's how I feel about someone doing the same with a gun.

Btw, according to the FBI database, more people are killed with knives in the USA than assault weapons. Did you know that?

The knife analogy is a very worn and ******** one, and is still as stupid today as it was the day someone invented it.

- First, a knife is much less dangerous than a gun. There is a reason we don't send people to war with a butterknife.

- Second, a knife is a TOOL than can be used as a weapon, while a gun is a weapon, full stop. I hope everybody here is able to understand the difference between a tool (which has a primary use not involving killing) which CAN be used as a weapon, and something which exists ONLY to kill.

- Third, knives are ubiquitous to everyday life. Even in a gun-crazy country like USA, guns are still much less common than something you find on every table and every kitchen in every home and each time in numerous instances. Everyone above the intelligence of a chimp (and probably most people below) is supposed able to understand that if something potentially dangerous is much more common, then it stands to reason that it's probably going to be involved in more fatality than something rare. According to this stupid comparison, tanks are less dangerous than knives because there is less deaths caused by them in USA each year.


If you want to make the analogy less stupid, at the very least try a sword.
It's still stupid because a sword is magnitude less powerful than a gun, but you can argue that a sword is a weapon first and not a tool that can be used as a weapon.
But of course, using a sword also show how idiotic the entire comparison is, so I guess it's the real reason why you don't use it.

Though I can go for stupid analogy too. After all, if it's okay to have a weapon at home, why not allow nuclear bombs to be bought ? As long as it's safely kept in your strongbox and you have a licence, there is no problem right ?

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, it's much more effective than the person using it, which is precisely the problem.

No, its not. Not at all.

Also, I don't see how not wanting a weapon is equal to assume that someone will be irresponsible with it, it's only a point of either (or both) principles and accidents. I'm pretty sure you understand fully the entire idea of "better safe than sorry" when it's not concerning things you have a fetish about.

I'd say the one with the 'fetish' is the person not allowing their spouse to have one if they want one for no good reason.

The knife analogy is a very worn and ******** one, and is still as stupid today as it was the day someone invented it.

Uhm...nope. Again, more people were killed with knives in this country than with assault rifles.

Thats simply a fact that you have no real counter for thus call it '********' and 'stupid'. Its not that at all. Its simply a fact that you cant deal with.

- First, a knife is much less dangerous than a gun. There is a reason we don't send people to war with a butterknife.

We dont send them to war with pellet guns either, so your point is pretty much moot. But we do send soldiers to war weaing combat knives.

You can die to a knife just as quickly as you can a gun. Again, another fact which you have no counter for.

- Second, a knife is a TOOL than can be used as a weapon, while a gun is a weapon, full stop.

Both are tools. Both have uses.

I hope everybody here is able to understand the difference between a tool (which has a primary use not involving killing) which CAN be used as a weapon, and something which exists ONLY to kill.

Can we move past the silly myth that guns only exist to kill? They dont. Many people simply enjoy shooting them, either just for fun or in competition. Some very high dollar guns are considered works of art. It is just simply silly and myopic to continually suggest guns are only exist to kill.

- Third, knives are ubiquitous to everyday life. Even in a gun-crazy country like USA, guns are still much less common than something you find on every table and every kitchen in every home and each time in numerous instances. Everyone above the intelligence of a chimp (and probably most people below) is supposed able to understand that if something potentially dangerous is much more common, then it stands to reason that it's probably going to be involved in more fatality than something rare.

Come on, the entire premise of the 'ban guns' argument is that we have too many of them and its too easy to get them. You cant argue that and then claim 'oh yeah, guns are rare'. They simply arent.

According to this stupid comparison, tanks are less dangerous than knives because there is less deaths caused by them in USA each year.

Well, to the average american, tanks are indeed far less dangerous than knives.

Though I can go for stupid analogy too. After all, if it's okay to have a weapon at home, why not allow nuclear bombs to be bought ? As long as it's safely kept in your strongbox and you have a licence, there is no problem right ?

Well, it didnt take you too long to drive off bridge of reality into exteme fantasy land did it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh, I'm sorry. I mistated the meme. More people are killed by knives or hammers than with Assault Weapons.

Nobody claimed they were. So what was your point in mentioning it? Are you trying to claim they are just as dangerous to own? That the pose the same threat if a mass killer gets his hands on one?

But mass killers rarely or never use knives or hammers anymore, while they do use assault weapons with disturbing frequency. Isn't that right?

And you didn't answer the question. "Whatever" isn't a valid response. Do you think overthrowing the US government if it becomes "tyrannical" is a valid reason to own assault weapons, or not? It is a quite simple question. All it takes is a "yes" or a "no" reply.

 

[MobBoss]

Nobody claimed they were. So what was your point in mentioning it? Are you trying to claim they are just as dangerous to own? That the pose the same threat if a mass killer gets his hands on one?

The point is that AW simply arent the problem that people are saying they are. If you want to address the real problems then the reason why we kill each other (regardless of the weapon) should be your goal.

But mass killers rarely or never use knives or hammers anymore, while they do use assault weapons with disturbing frequency. Isn't that right?

Actually, history shows us they also use pistols, shotguns and regular rifles just as often.

And you didn't answer the question. "Whatever" isn't a valid response. Do you think overthrowing the US government if it becomes "tyrannical" is a valid reason to own assault weapons, or not? It is a quite simple question. All it takes is a "yes" or a "no" reply.

Since when did you ever give me a 'yes or no' reply?

Since your fond of quotes how about a few:

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance. - Walt Whitman

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. - C. S. Lewis

 

[Akka]

No, its not. Not at all.

Well, I guess you're blind enough to not even understand the entire principle of a weapon, or more probably, as the rest of your post tend to be a glaring proof, you simply are a gun fetishist and lose all ability to reason when it comes to it.
Which makes any attempt at discussion pointless.

Particularly, claiming a gun is a "tool" instead of a weapon is the definite proof that the gun isn't the only thing being a tool.

 

[MobBoss]

No, i'm not blind - i'm the one actually able to see more uses (and enjoyment) out of a gun than mere 'killing'. You're the one with the myopia here, not me.

And again, I don't own a single firearm. So much for your 'fethist' allegation.

And yeah, I guess i'm a tool for factually recognizing things for what they really are. But by all means throw your fit, weep and gnash your teeth. It does nothing to help your argument.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The point is that AW simply arent the problem that people are saying they are.

The mere fact that you are willing to make that statement shows you aren't really interested in addressing the real problems at all, just like the NRA and Alex Jones who use the same excuses as you do. But at least Alex Jones is willing to admit why he wants assault weapon sales to continue while you won't, at least directly. But I think it is quite clear that it is the same fear you will have to someday overthrow your own government is really your own primary reason with the others being mere excuses.

It isn't a coincidence that assault weapons have become the weapons of choice in many mass killings in the US. After all, efficiently killing a large number of humans in a short period of time was their intended design goal. With any luck, it won't matter any more what the survivalists and the gun lobbies which support companies that get rich off of them think. Many of the vast majority of people who aren't survivalists will hopefully realize they have been largely deceived by massive disinformation campaigns, and they will demand that these weapons are no longer available for purchase.

 

[MobBoss]

Form, again, more people in this country were killed by knives, blunt weapons and hands/fists each than were killed by assault weapons.

And again, mass killers are just as likely to use shotguns and pistols inasmuch as AW.

Cant change the facts there form. You can only choose to ignore them.

 

[Patroklos]

But mass killers rarely or never use knives or hammers anymore, while they do use assault weapons with disturbing frequency. Isn't that right?

No, they use handguns with disturbing frequency.

.

It isn't a coincidence that assault weapons have become the weapons of choice in many mass killings in the US. After all, efficiently killing a large number of humans in a short period of time was their intended design goal. With any luck, it won't matter any more what the survivalists and the gun lobbies which support companies that get rich off of them think. Many of the vast majority of people who aren't survivalists will hopefully realize they have been largely deceived by massive disinformation campaigns, and they will demand that these weapons are no longer available for purchase.

It isn't a coincidence, because Handguns are the weapon of choice (VT for instance). Followed by shotguns (Aurora for instance).

 

[Akka]

No, i'm not blind - i'm the one actually able to see more uses (and enjoyment) out of a gun than mere 'killing'. You're the one with the myopia here, not me.

No, I'm not, you're just doing the gun cheerleader and are purposedly abusing and stretching word meaning. You're not a tool for not recognizing things for what they are, but exactly the opposite, because you show you're UNABLE to recognize things for what they are.

A gun is a WEAPON, not a TOOL. It's DESIGNED to kill.

Now you can obviously use it for something else, but that doesn't make it a tool, just like you can use a chair to bash some skull, but it doesn't make it a weapon by design.

I like swords, for example, I find them cool, and if I ever owned one I would use it to recreate swordfight, practice fencing or put it on the chimney as a decoration. This still doesn't mean it's not a weapon, and it's certainly not a tool. And it would certainly doesn't make it any less dangerous or any less designed to kill that I do not actually use for slicing people.

 

[MobBoss]

No, I'm not, you're just doing the gun cheerleader and are purposedly abusing and stretching word meaning. You're not a tool for not recognizing things for what they are, but exactly the opposite, because you show you're UNABLE to recognize things for what they are.

A gun is a WEAPON, not a TOOL. It's DESIGNED to kill.

Uh..Akka...weapons ARE tools.



I mean really....granted they are more complex than say a wrench or a screwdriver, but they are still tools nontheless. You ranting otherwise isnt going to change that simple fact.

Now you can obviously use it for something else, but that doesn't make it a tool, just like you can use a chair to bash some skull, but it doesn't make it a weapon by design.

No, but in legal terms it would still be an assault with a weapon. Dont you know this?

I like swords, for example, I find them cool, and if I ever owned one I would use it to recreate swordfight, practice fencing or put it on the chimney as a decoration. This still doesn't mean it's not a weapon, and it's certainly not a tool.

Of course it is. And you would obviously be using for another purpose for which it is designed. Just as guns owners can.

And it would certainly doesn't make it any less dangerous or any less designed to kill that I do not actually use for slicing people.

But you would still be using for other purposes than slicing up people.

Dont you see by your example you just defeated your own argument?

Probably not.

 

[kochman]

MB, how dare you have a different opinion than Akka.
Choke yourself out, then apologize.

 

[Patroklos]

Why does being involved with killing people not make something a tool?

 

[LightSpectra]

How does the fact that guns were designed to kill override the fact that they have as much value in deterrence as actual hostile usage?

 

[WindFish]

How does the fact that guns were designed to kill override the fact that they have as much value in deterrence as actual hostile usage?

I'm not so sure about that

 

[kochman]

Why does being involved with killing people not make something a tool?

Well, once you've killed someone with a hammer, it's no longer a tool, either.

A gun is a tool designed to accurately shoot a projectile at a rapid speed at it's target.

Tool has a pretty broad definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

1a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task

A gun definitely fits in the tool category.
Calling people tools for using the correct definition of the word tool is pretty toolish, IMHO.