Of course, saying they are designed to kill ignores their use in saving the world from asteroids or restarting the Earth’s core when it stops. 
Or, slightly less tongue in cheek, the fact that having the nasty things probably prevented another full on world war and have kept things relatively peaceful between the various contending superpowers since the last one.
As saying guns were designed to kill ignores the fact that they can be USED to do more than kill, including to protect lives as the police and military demonstrate.
Suicides maybe? Suicides probably tracks population growth a lot better than gun murder over the last 30 years.
Unless there is a tall building or bridge around.
There are several reasons why suicides don’t count. Our suicide rate is absolutely average for wealthy industrialized nations despite having a metric shitload of guns. In a country where we have a constitutional right to a handgun, suicide prevention (and identifying potential suicides) rather than gun control is how you are going to have to prevent suicides.
Why not just call him a babykiller and get it over with.
How would you do that? Make the gun count to three mississippi before it can fire again? Semi automatic just means that it fires one bullet every time you pull the trigger. This accounts for almost every handgun and many rifles.
Doesn’t it depend on who has the guns? If only cops had guns in this country, would that make this country more safe or less safe than a country with no guns at all?
What apologists?
One trip to the gun range usually leaves me at least 100 rounds lighter. I usually buy ammo 500 or 1000 rounds at a time. There was a time when 22 lr was plentiful enough that I would buy them 5000 or 10,000 rounds at a time, those were good times.
How many suicides were committed by gun before and how many now? How many suicides before and how many now? IIRC, the number of gun suicides was small enough that it didn’t really make a dent in overall suicides the year after guns were confiscated. Why does it take so long for the effect of gun confiscation to reduce the rate of gun suicides? Shouldn’t the impact be seen almost immediately after the confiscation?
So explain why that matters? Guns were designed to kill, cars were designed to transport. Guns, like cars present both costs and benefits. Whats your point?
Huh - I didn’t know you could commit suicide with a gun by a method other than shooting.
I guess if you’ve got a pistol, and you hit yourself over the head hard enough with the butt…
Most tall buildings for the past 40 years or so have been constructed without windows that open. Hard to jump out a window from one of them. Bridges have also been designed/retrofitted to make them harder to jump off of.
Lots easier to get hold of a gun.
Dumuri is such a stupid fuck that not only can he not remember the info I gave him months ago on the subject of suicides in Australia, he can’t even remember the data someone else cut and pasted just a few posts ago. None so blind… maybe. How about none so fucking stupid as those who will not think.
He is the king of IIRC, when he has fucking google at his fingertips.
Sorry I thought you were talking about the disparity between gun murders and gun deaths, which is what I think the poster you were replying to was referring to.
/sigh. Why did I forget that I wasn’t going to engage you in the pit anymore? Your entire argument is cursing, frothing at the mouth and calling names. When you think you have an argument that doesn’t ignoring reality or calling names, come on over to great debates.
Eat shit douchebag. You simply can’t or won’t understand the data, methods, and other technical information I have spent time explaining to you. I don’t engage you anywhere because it is a waste of my time. (For exactly this type of tactic you are engaging in here.)
I will continue to explain to others whenever you post your bullshit, just to keep you from misinforming even more people.
Do I REALLY need to explain this? Wow.
Okay. Yes, people die in cars. That doesn’t mean that we should ban cars. Because their function is not to kill people. They were designed to transport people and materials from one place to another. The potential for death or injury is an inherent risk, true.
Every time there’s a mass shooting, and one of these threads get started, pro-gun people start throwing out inconsistent analogies about the other ways people can die, and some ask whether we should ban cars. Or swimming pools. Or a hundred other things.
The thing is, those things generally only result in death when there’s negligence somewhere. It could be in the user, or the manufacturer, or any other variable.
But guns kill. That’s why they were invented. Even when people are being safe, the device is designed to end a life. Swimming pools aren’t. Cars aren’t.
Even operating a gun correctly results either in injury or death, or to allow you to be better at using it in case you have to kill someone. That’s its sole purpose.
I’m not advocating a gun ban. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. With reasonable restrictions. Like more in-depth background checks, permits renewed yearly, and I support the AWB. No one NEEDS an AK-47 to “defend” their property.
Remember, you’re addressing a psychopath who considers all that a “benefit”.
And thats why your position is so dominant in great debates. How’s that assault weapons ban working out for you? If your argument only survives in the pit, it says something about your argument.
Yes because its a stupid point. Looking at the costs of guns while ignoring the benefits is stupid.
Cost/benefit analysis for cars.
But no cost/benefit analysis of guns.
Guns only ever kill people if someone is negligent, breaking the law or defending themselves (perhaps from criminals who are not allowed to own guns but have them anyway).
I’ve advocated for licensing and registration many times on this board. I’m curious, what you do you think a yearly renewal requirement on the license gets you other than being a pain in everyone’s ass?
The AWB is a gun ban. In fact its one of the silliest forms of gun ban in that it bans a small subset of gun based mostly on cosmetic features. Its like extending the maginot line through Luxembourg and feeling like you achieved something.
So what makes an AK-47 different than a hunting rifle like this Remington 750?
We had an AWB for 10 years and there was no noticable effect. It turns out that cosmetic differences between guns don’t drive murder rates.
Well, it’s certainly refreshing to know that you value cost/benefit analyses over logic and reason.
As far as the renewable registration, we renew our drivers licenses periodically. I would imagine that renewing your gun permit would do the exact same thing: help ensure that the people that want to use them are still competent enough to do so.
So, to recap: for every one DGU shooting, there were 22 accidental/criminal/suicide-related shootings.
Take your ‘benefit’ and shove it up your ass. Jackass.
Implement one and let’s see. Your glee over the inadequacy of gun control legislation only illustrates your psychopathy, btw.
And perhaps someday you’ll get around to listing them. But, since the “benefits” to you as a psychopath are, as you know, not publicly presentable, it isn’t to be expected that you ever will.
Or if people are like that anyway, but have the means at hand to kill people. You, as a psychopath, are unable to understand how human nature can work that way, and that’s what leads to you try to explain the problem to yourself as their “irrational fear of guns”. No, it isn’t that, it’s an entirely-rational fear of people with guns. And especially of psychopaths with guns.
Yet, when legislation to do that is defeated by filibuster, you’re *gleeful *about it. IOW, you’re lying, pathetically, like a psychopath with an inability to perform basic introspection.
What does it get you for a car, other than increased safety?
(my bold)
How do you reconcile those two statements? You know that AWB means ‘assault weapon BAN’ right?
I’m not sure you aren’t dissembling here. But it’s pretty clear to me.
When s/he says
“I’m not advocating a gun ban”,
s/he means
“I’m not advocating a ban on all guns.”
You seem to be reading it as
“I’m not advocating a ban of any guns.”
That is, it would certainly be a contradiction if s/he were saying “I don’t want to ban any guns, but I want to ban some guns.”
Instead, however, s/he is saying “I don’t want to ban all guns, but I want to ban some guns.”
I don’t know what is involved in your state for renewing a driver’s license but ehre it is merely taking a new picture and paying a fee every 10 years or so. I would have no problem if the gun license was jsut a check mark on your driver’s license next to the one that says you have to wear glasses when you drive and you have to renew it when you renew your driver’s license. But annual renewal with some sort of competency exam is out of the question.
Are you under the impression that someone is shot every time they use a gun defensively? Asshole.
Come back when you can make a statement without using insults as your primary argument.
We did. We had one for ten years between 1994 and 2004. It made no difference.
But you go ahead and keep trying for that AWB and see how far you get on stuff that actually makes a difference.
Your entire explanation for our disagreement is that I’m a psychopath and you are a rational human being? :rolleyes:
When was I gleeful about it? I wasn’t particularly upset that the gun show background check didn’t pass, mostly because it was a msotly meiningless fig leaf to hide the embarassing failure of the gun control crowd to get anything at all out of Newtown. but worry not, there will be another tragedy downt eh road that you can try to exploit to get meaningless ineffective gun control measures that focus on banning guns that look scary.
You have to renew your driver’s license every year? You sure, you’re not confusing yourself (or trying to confuse others)?
Or are you talking about your car inspection where you make sure that your car is operating properly? Are you saying that we should have annual gun inspections to make sure that guns are operating properly, wtf is the point in that?
You also get a vision check and can also be required to take a new road test for a renewal, at least in most states. And your car gets a safety inspection every year.
Are you going to claim there is some vastly-greater number of lesser cases that are, conveniently for you, uncountable and, for some mystifying reason, rarely even reported? Asshole.
As you know, it only limited new sales. No wonder it made no difference (if that is, in fact, true, and coming from you that cannot be assumed).
Do you ever hear yourself speak? You’re actually opposing anything that can make a difference, for that reason alone. Gleefully.
No, I’m explaining that your being a psychopath is what *makes *you wrong.
Every time it has come up.
What does a “majority” mean to you? Asshole. That very statement epitomizes glee, btw.
More glee about more deaths.
You’re even opposed to things you claim are meaningless. Gleefully.
Same point that there is in cars. If you’re going to claim a parallel, claim it all the way. And do NOT fucking come out against basic safety.
Get help. Now. Turn in your guns, you’re a menace with them given your basic contempt for human life itself, and get help.
FWIW, none of that is the case in Oregon or Washington (the two I’m most recently familiar with.)
Damuri, if annual re-certification is out of the question–and I agree that’s onerous–what would be acceptable for a firearm competency exam? Every five years? Every ten?
Many states are pushing for stricter auto licensing requirements for the elderly, particularly as Boomers age. Would it be reasonable to ensure that an 85yo grandma is competent to maintain and handle a firearm?
If that’s the case, it’s consistent. That was not the message that was conveyed, but I welcome clarification.
That was exactly what I meant. Thanks for the clarification, andros (and, FTR, I’m a “he.” The “dude” part of my name should be a clue).
I DO support the right to bear arms. I do NOT think all guns should be banned. But I agree with a ban on assault weapons, because that seems perfectly reasonable to me. YMMV, of course.
Damuri, why would yearly re-certification be right out?