Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
You were the one who said:
[ QUOTE ]
I think that any firearm sold any civilian is more likely to be used for bad than for good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you even know what you're saying anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I told you what I thought. What's your point?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Now, how do you define for others where that limitation comes in? Are you for seatbelt laws for instance? What about drug laws?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I thought I made it clear that I'm willing to go very far in terms of inconvenience to save lives - hence the extreme bio-suit example. It would be difficult to quantify exactly how much inconvenience that is acceptable, so you make a good point. But in terms of gun control, I'm willing to accept almost everything - which could easily be derived as I have said that I wouldn't mind the complete ban of non-hunting-purpose firearms.

[ QUOTE ]
That's nice that your willing to accept inconviences for others, but that doesn't mean that those others should accept inconviences for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I already admitted to overestimating the American willingness to accept gun control. I am very aware that other opinions exist (this debate, for instance).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You were the one who said:
[ QUOTE ]
I think that any firearm sold any civilian is more likely to be used for bad than for good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you even know what you're saying anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I told you what I thought. What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opinion is objectively wrong. It's like if you said 2+2=9.

[slickss]

I wrote this:
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you will disagree with me here, but I think that any firearm sold any civilian is more likely to be used for bad than for good.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you, BCPVP, replied the following:
[ QUOTE ]
There are 200 million firearms in the United States. This report (pretty old; 1990's) says that there are 44 million gun owners. There are several orders of magnitude fewer crimes committed with firearms than there are firearm owners. So your opinion has no basis in fact. Standard for the anti-gun crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]
My argument was that the statistics you mentioned - that there aren't as many crimes committed with firearms as there are firearm owners - say nothing about the good/bad influence that the firearms had. In other words, the statistics that you presented did not prove or disprove my statement.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote this:
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you will disagree with me here, but I think that any firearm sold any civilian is more likely to be used for bad than for good.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you, BCPVP, replied the following:
[ QUOTE ]
There are 200 million firearms in the United States. This report (pretty old; 1990's) says that there are 44 million gun owners. There are several orders of magnitude fewer crimes committed with firearms than there are firearm owners. So your opinion has no basis in fact. Standard for the anti-gun crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]
My argument was that the statistics you mentioned - that there aren't as many crimes committed with firearms as there are firearm owners - say nothing about the good/bad influence that the firearms had. In other words, the statistics that you presented did not prove or disprove my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the gun is more likely to be used for bad than good, we should see that born out in the statistics. But we see no such thing.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a general principle, do you really believe in saving "just one life" regardless of inconvenience?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I was hoping for too much when I assumed that most Americans would accept some paperwork and a small waiting period for the sake of making it more difficult for criminals to acquire one.

Keep in mind that these are the very criminals you claim to be defending yourself against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was asking if you believe in saving "just one life" regardless of inconvenience, as a general principle. And your answer is...?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
I was asking if you believe in saving "just one life" regardless of inconvenience, as a general principle. And your answer is...?

[/ QUOTE ]
I already answered this, maybe you missed it?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that. I'm simply trying to figure out what kind of person he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

well let's look at what it means to be american, from the dec. of independ. we have god given rights and governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.

Now the guy in question ssays we must "redefine individual rights". I've also heard talk about "balancing individual rights with community rights".

So whether he calls himself a communist or a communitarian or whatever, the one thing that he is not is an american. And a lot of people lilke him are trying change the US to reflect their new values.

As to the actual guy, I'm sure he's just some brainwashed college student whose parroting what he's learned in class.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

I was asking if you believe in saving "just one life" regardless of inconvenience, as a general principle. And your answer is...?


I already answered this, maybe you missed it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it saves just one life to make guns readily available (think of the guy's aunt who was being burglarized and warded of the thug with a gun), then is it worth it?

Gee, that if it saves just one life can be used for both sides of the argument, what do you know?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think your neighbor owning somehting is infringing on your rights, go ahead and take him to court and see what happens. That's what courts are for.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along. An independent process like a court system is necessary to decide if my claim that my rights are being violated is valid. pvn's stance has been that my claim that he is violating my rights doesn't matter because under his concept of rights my rights aren't being violated. I don't find that acceptable, because if we allow the alleged violator of rights to decide if rights are being violated then there would be no rights for anybody.