Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think getting shot is the only threat to your safety?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no. But this threat to my safety, getting shot, can to some extent be prevented. Others can too, probably, but we're not discussing them right now.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best way to formulate policy. Let's just pull some numbers out of my ass and go with that. Good show!

[/ QUOTE ]
I pulled some numbers out to further explain what I meant, i.e. to make it easier for others to understand exactly what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep everyone in individual padded cells. Then nobody will hurt anyone else. This would save far more than just one life, so obviously it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More good policy-making. "I *think* that anyone who buys a car is more likely to run over someone than not to. So no cars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read everything? I don't think I could've addressed this more clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
If the "vast majority" are only used for target practice, how can it possibly be that *more* guns are used for evil purposes than good? You just said that *more* than 50% are used *only* for good things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me be more specific then.

Good: A life was saved because of a gun.
Bad: A life was lost because of a gun.
Neutral: Target practice.

I never said that more than 50% is used for bad things. Please stop attacking me by putting words in my mouth. The beauty of online forums is that you can go back and read what I wrote, so there should be no confusion as to what my words were.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think getting shot is the only threat to your safety?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no. But this threat to my safety, getting shot, can to some extent be prevented. Others can too, probably, but we're not discussing them right now.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best way to formulate policy. Let's just pull some numbers out of my ass and go with that. Good show!

[/ QUOTE ]
I pulled some numbers out to further explain what I meant, i.e. to make it easier for others to understand exactly what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep everyone in individual padded cells. Then nobody will hurt anyone else. This would save far more than just one life, so obviously it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More good policy-making. "I *think* that anyone who buys a car is more likely to run over someone than not to. So no cars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read everything? I don't think I could've addressed this more clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
If the "vast majority" are only used for target practice, how can it possibly be that *more* guns are used for evil purposes than good? You just said that *more* than 50% are used *only* for good things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me be more specific then.

Good: A life was saved because of a gun.
Bad: A life was lost because of a gun.
Neutral: Target practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the gun was used to kill a rapist by an old lady? Is this life lost a bad thing? I wouldn't think so.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun was used to kill a rapist by an old lady? Is this life lost a bad thing? I wouldn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. There is a gray area. For some crimes, yes I agree, the death of the criminal was a good thing in comparison to the crime he was about to commit. I'm not sure we really want to go further into this, as it would be difficult to get anywhere with it (I think).

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun was used to kill a rapist by an old lady? Is this life lost a bad thing? I wouldn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. There is a gray area. For some crimes, yes I agree, the death of the criminal was a good thing in comparison to the crime he was about to commit. I'm not sure we really want to go further into this, as it would be difficult to get anywhere with it (I think).

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a grey area? Difficult to get anywhere with it? What?

Time for some Abreu now.

[nef]

The gun lobby—typically opposed to any attempt to tighten federal gun controls—doesn't disagree. The National Rifle Association has decided to make no public comment about any aspect of the Virginia Tech tragedy, according to a spokesman. But a source close to the gun lobby (who asked not to be identified because of the organization’s sensitivities about making any political points related to the tragedy), pointed out that pro-gun lobbyists and groups like the NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records to background check databases. "We have no problem as long as one is adjudicated mentally incompetent [in denying gun purchases] and we have no problem with mental health records being part of the NICS," the source said. "The problem is not with the gun community. The problem is with the medical community" that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741...wsweek/page/3/

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun was used to kill a rapist by an old lady? Is this life lost a bad thing? I wouldn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. There is a gray area. For some crimes, yes I agree, the death of the criminal was a good thing in comparison to the crime he was about to commit. I'm not sure we really want to go further into this, as it would be difficult to get anywhere with it (I think).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to limit discussion to points in your favor?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think getting shot is the only threat to your safety?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, no. But this threat to my safety, getting shot, can to some extent be prevented. Others can too, probably, but we're not discussing them right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you basically just want to ignore any effects that the policy you advocate might have. The intention is good, so that's enough for you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best way to formulate policy. Let's just pull some numbers out of my ass and go with that. Good show!

[/ QUOTE ]
I pulled some numbers out to further explain what I meant, i.e. to make it easier for others to understand exactly what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understood perfectly. You are appealing to emotion instead of logic, and you made up numbers to back your emotional claim.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep everyone in individual padded cells. Then nobody will hurt anyone else. This would save far more than just one life, so obviously it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More good policy-making. "I *think* that anyone who buys a car is more likely to run over someone than not to. So no cars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read everything? I don't think I could've addressed this more clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you've been very clear.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the "vast majority" are only used for target practice, how can it possibly be that *more* guns are used for evil purposes than good? You just said that *more* than 50% are used *only* for good things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me be more specific then.

Good: A life was saved because of a gun.
Bad: A life was lost because of a gun.
Neutral: Target practice.

I never said that more than 50% is used for bad things. Please stop attacking me by putting words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said more were used for bad things than good. Then you said more than 50% were used only for things like target practice. I consider target practice a good thing - it doesn't hurt anyone unwillingly, it increases the shooter's proficiency (he's now less likely to accidentally shoot you!), it increases the shooter's satisfaction (as evidenced by the fact that he voluntarily does it).

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of online forums is that you can go back and read what I wrote, so there should be no confusion as to what my words were.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not confused at all.