Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If *you* don't like object XYZ, don't buy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this help a shooting victim?

[/ QUOTE ]

??

Non Sequitur

[Huh?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why so many gun related deaths in us compared to other countries...is it simply the mass quantity? 250 million or something like that?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is most assuredly not just the quantity. Every Swiss male between a certain age is required to keep a machine gun and ammunition in their house as well as train in their national guard. Yet the Swiss have pretty low amounts of gun crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

so have there been any good studies to figure out why? can't think its just the culture.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
What's misleading? Things are dangerous. Things can be used to hurt other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but there are two types of "things" - those that are designed specifically to hurt other people and those that do something else and can be used to hurt other people. You can't make statements about one type and generalize them to the other type because they're different.

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make if there are uses that *you* consider "legitimate" or "useful" outside of that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a personalized utility (i.e. you're *you* is an invalid accusation). We're talking about objects that are built and sold to provide some service. If a company builds cars and sells them to people to use for transport, it's not *my* interpretation that the car is designed for transport. That's what it's for.

[ QUOTE ]
If *you* don't like object XYZ, don't buy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you possess a gun and it changes the chance that I will be shot that's an act of aggression against me. So it's not sufficient that I not buy one for myself. Using your reasoning if I punch you in the face and you say "hey, you don't have the right to punch me in the face" then I can say "if you don't like being punched in the face then don't make a fist".

[ QUOTE ]
You think there's no use for a gun outside of the ability to mortally wound, but most times guns are used, people are not mortally wounded. Maybe I use one to prop open a door. What difference does it make?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could also use, I don't know, a little triangular piece of wood maybe. If your argument in support of gun ownership is that you should be able to endanger me so that you can have something to prop your door open with then you'll need to do better than that.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why so many gun related deaths in us compared to other countries...is it simply the mass quantity? 250 million or something like that?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is most assuredly not just the quantity. Every Swiss male between a certain age is required to keep a machine gun and ammunition in their house as well as train in their national guard. Yet the Swiss have pretty low amounts of gun crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

so have there been any good studies to figure out why? can't think its just the culture.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think crime has a big role in it, especially drug crime.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
41,650 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents,
17,229 in falls at home and on the job,
3,306 from water in drowning,
19,457 from poisoning, in the same year,
3,369 due to fire or burns,
3,200 due to choking, and
900 from guns


[/ QUOTE ]

0 deaths from nuclear weapons for 50 years. Therefore, nuclear weapons are more safe than cars.

[ QUOTE ]
If guns are so dangerous, why is it like 18 or so times more likely to die from a fall? lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a serious question, or are you not that smart? For your statistics to have any relevance whatsoever (and even then the relevance would be low) you would have to normalize for the frequency of use. Cars are more likely to cause injury/death, in part, because they are used much more frequently. Even after normalizing for frequency of use, you would still have to weigh the injuries/deaths against utility.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you possess a gun and it changes the chance that I will be shot that's an act of aggression against me. So it's not sufficient that I not buy one for myself. Using your reasoning if I punch you in the face and you say "hey, you don't have the right to punch me in the face" then I can say "if you don't like being punched in the face then don't make a fist".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way off. You are equating one's possesion of a gun with that person punching you in the face? Obviously, the more apt analogy would be to equate that person SHOOTING you with punching you in the face.

I'm not saying don't buy a gun if you don't like me shooting you. I'm saying that if you don't like guns don't buy one.

Me owning a gun is not an interaction with you. You have no grounds for legitimate objection. Me shooting you IS interacting with you. The fact that you'd perfer that I not have a gun is irrelevant, since you have no right to have others conform to your preferences.

Your desire for me to not have a gun is frankly no different than a desire for someone to give you $100.

And the mere fact that the chance you will be shot is increased is not necessarily "aggression" against you. My neighbor has some gasoline and matches in his house; this increases the chances that my house will be burned to the ground.


Further, the fact that a gun is intended for one use or another is irrelevant. A single purpose doesn't give you, or anyone else, free license to regulate.

[ QUOTE ]
You could also use, I don't know, a little triangular piece of wood maybe. If your argument in support of gun ownership is that you should be able to endanger me so that you can have something to prop your door open with then you'll need to do better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to do anything. You're not entitled to an explanation from me for my actions.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If *you* don't like object XYZ, don't buy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this help a shooting victim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the point? How does the fact that guns are illegal help the shooting victim? How does gun control do anything but restrain the innocent?

[/ QUOTE ]

No my point was, to say "You don't have to buy a gun if you don't want one, just don't tell me what to do" doesn't mean anything to a gun control advocate. He wants the criminal NOT to have a gun so he or a loved one doesn't get shot. Saying it's simply an issue of personal choice doesn't address the concerns of the many innocent victims of gun violence every year.

And yes I realize criminals would likely find ways to get guns anyway, but that wasn't the point. The point was that it's not strictly personal choice, like if you choose to kill yourself with cigarettes or overeating. Innocent people get caught in the crossfire, and having the freedom to buy or not to buy a gun does not help them when they get shot.

Personally I'd prefer it be a little tougher for me to get a gun, if it makes it a lot tougher for a criminal to get one. You can argue that criminals will get guns anyway, but that is an issue of enforcement, not whether the laws violate your civil rights in the first place.

[Jetboy2]

Those are accidental deaths. So what?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We certainly have the "keep and bear arms" part down pat, but not the "well regulated" militia part. Making it easy for most any adult to obtain a gun doesn't seem very "well regulated" to me, and it is certainly very easy to obtain a gun in this country. The system that allows Cho Seung-Hui, Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, etc, to easily obtain firearms....is NOT very "well regulated".

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are accidental deaths. So what?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We certainly have the "keep and bear arms" part down pat, but not the "well regulated" militia part.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. No wonder why we don't have a 'free state'.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No my point was, to say "You don't have to buy a gun if you don't want one, just don't tell me what to do" doesn't mean anything to a gun control advocate. He wants the criminal NOT to have a gun so he or a loved one doesn't get shot. Saying it's simply an issue of personal choice doesn't address the concerns of the many innocent victims of gun violence every year.

And yes I realize criminals would likely find ways to get guns anyway, but that wasn't the point. The point was that it's not strictly personal choice, like if you choose to kill yourself with cigarettes or overeating. Innocent people get caught in the crossfire, and having the freedom to buy or not to buy a gun does not help them when they get shot.

Personally I'd prefer it be a little tougher for me to get a gun, if it makes it a lot tougher for a criminal to get one. You can argue that criminals will get guns anyway, but that is an issue of enforcement, not whether the laws violate your civil rights in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly. This is all about your personal preference. You *might* do XYZ, so I need to pre-emptively attack you to prevent you from doing so.

The "guns only have one purpose" argument is a non-starter. Guns can be used to attack innocents, AND they can be used to stop those who are attacking innocents. The fact that you don't want them used in the former manner does not give you the right to prevent others from owning them, wether or not they may be used to do the latter. It's like saying "the only purpose of the internal combustion engine is to send heavy pieces of metal moving with force." You can look at anything in such a dumbed down, low-level manner and reduce it to "one function".

For those who think this "only one designed purpose" blather is a valid argument, should police and military units also be prohibited from possessing firearms? Why or why not?