Let’s paraphrase that then;
I’ve just made something up that, if true, supports my case. If nobody proves it to be untrue, I must be correct.
I would guess, but do not know, that people who own guns are more likely to steal library books than people who own swimming polls - bastards!
Sorry to be unclear, what I meant was situations where the gun was not fired but drawn. I know several persons who have done this and no police were involved. If you shoot someone you have to call the police, wait for them, explain your actions, quite possibly go to jail, bail out and wait for a grand jury. The only person I know who has killed someone outside of combat, had that exact scenario happen, grand jury no billed it.
Capt
But that IS one kind of gun usage among the general population, and even if you factor out that kind of usage, I think (guess) that the results would still show that swimming deaths per swim are higher than gun deaths per gun use.
Furthermore, my posts were intended to do nothing more than question the methodology being used to compare the relative “dangerousness” of disparate intangible objects and/or types of volitional human actions.
Having said that, is there really anyone out there who does not believe that there are many objects and/or activities that are legal in the USA and are more dangerous than guns and/or gun ownership.
Not mine either. I just watch from above.
Bingo! Yet you want to legislate it, in hopes that it will keep criminals from shooting people?
In much the same way that if we outlaw sleeping rough, only criminals will sleep rough…
How far would such a legal definition carry though? Are the only civilian deaths of children?
The way this is phrased is a little ambiguous (kinda like the second amendment). I presume you mean the supermajority of regular gun users do not kill anyone, rather than the supermajority of Americans regularly use guns and do not kill anyone.
Well, I think the comparison is valid. A swimming pool is an inanimate object, like a handgun (which has moving parts, but we’ll avoid semantics for the most part). Then again, so is napalm. Owning a swimming pool poses a calculable risk for both guests, children and intruders. An adult may choose to let a child swim, knowing the risk of the child drowning. An adult likewise may let a child outside, knowing the risk of the child getting shot. There are state laws mandating certain precautions such as a fence - presumably based on solid research determining whether such precautions would reduce instances of death. Intruders can still file a civil suit for negligence according to one site I read. Course, there are substantial differences too: no constitutional right to own a swimming pool. Nor is a swimming pool transportable across state lines nor capable of being concealed on the person. Rarely are there instances of mass drownings.
Hah.
Theme tune to the thread by the way. Preparatory and operative! Capitalised “people”! We didn’t even get into those…
What exactly do I want to legislate? I must have been typing too fast to take that bit in.
OH DEAR GOOD LORD! NOT THE SWIMMING POOL AGAIN!!!
I’m off…
I’m a liberal. I helped vote Obama in twice now.
I also live in the sticks. And own 10 guns. Not one of them that I have bought for myself. All of them have been handed down to me. The newest is 15 years old (but a 100 year old design) the oldest is 80 years old. All are in perfect working order.
As I do live very far from any help, I plan on keeping them.
Bear and moose frequent our house near year round. Mountain Lion not so much but they are around. Not too worried about the four legged critters. But I do have to scare them off once in a while.
The truth is, in this valley we don’t have crime. None that I have heard of in my 20 years of living here. I think it’s because it’s pretty well known that mountain folks are armed. With at the very least a hunting rifle.
Now I’m not suggesting that city living is the same. It’s not. But - I don’t really care what other folks might need or use. Hunt, protection, or whatever. It’s none of my business. I wish that anti-gun folks would educate themselves about firearms and how they are used.
And I would really like to know what the anti-gun folks (sorry, need a different label) expect me to do with my lawfully owned guns?
Destroy them? For what reason?
Your post is even sillier than the post I was responding to, but that doesn’t surprise me given your misuse of “paraphrase” and apparent inability to recognize irony.
That being said, pray tell: what is the rationale for outlawing guns? Don’t YOU believe there are alot of things that are legal in the USA that are more dangerous than guns?
If you bothered to read my post rather than ejaculate your first, ill formed, thought about it all over your keyboard, you’d have noticed that I made no comment whatsoever about outlawing guns. I was commenting on the fact that you just made up a statistic.
I have no comment at all to make about the legality or otherwise of guns in the US, I don’t understand the arguments well enough to comment, but I do think that commenting on outright fabrications in your argument is valid.
Pretty much, as near as I’ve been able to figure out. The closest they can come to a reason is actually the line used by the gun rights advocates: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. See, the anti-gun people are PERFECTLY OKAY with that line of reasoning, and don’t understand why they’re having such trouble getting traction with the pro-gun people, since they’re obviously on the same page.
Odd timing, in the parallel GD thread I just offered to give up my handguns if the majority of the illegal guns were removed from criminals. There is now way to remove them all because the real bad guys won’t care but if you make the penalties for possession harsh and figure out a way to get illegal weapons of the street and successfully achieve these goals. I will give up the pistols not rifles or shotguns. Just a thought
Capt
Well, if you had bothered to read my posts, you would have noticed that, not only did I not make up any statistic, I never even mentioned one. Perhaps you don’t know what the word “statistic” means. I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t, given your clumsy misuse of the words “paraphrase” and “ejaculating” in your posts.
Interesting story here about rising gun sales and decreasing gun violence in Virginia.
Oddly, neither the pro or anti-gun forces quoted in the article seemed to have picked up on the obvious - all the guns sold in Virginia were obviously shipped out to foolsguinea’s neighborhood. 
I don’t know about you, I keep a life preserver next to my bed. Hardly anyone ever gets killed by an intruder.
Explain “It’s not people’s usage of guns in controlled environments that sensible people are concerned about.”
Chicago, where this message board is based, just surpassed last years record of gun deaths by having it’s 436th gun related homicide. This link is from local Chicago CBS, not some ‘gun nut’ site. It is a few weeks old so I’m sure the number must be higher today.
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun policies in the US. Yet that does not seem to be having any effect on gun violence, why?
Other large urban areas also show a correlation between restrictive gun policies and a greater number of gun deaths. Why?
Large urban areas without severe gun control do not show a similar level of gun deaths, Why?
The US is not the UK, nor is it Canada, or the European Union, and it never will be. Arguements that refer to the UK or Canada are non sequitur, they are irrelevant to the US.
Can anyone, anyone, show a large urban area in the US where gun restrictions have reduced gun deaths? Anyone? These issues are not a problem in rural areas where most law abiding people own firearms, just in cities where they don’t.
If you are going to convince gun owners that new restrictions will produce the desired results, then point to an example of where this has worked, what was the new policy, and why did it work.
Because you can’t. I also find it amusing that in all of these anti-gun threads the most vocal posters are those that don’t even live in the US. Why are you even commenting on our 2nd amendment? It doesn’t apply to you. The US constitution was written at a time of great desire to separate from European policy. And it empowers the people in a way that your society does not.
I think that is what really just grates on your ass.
You sleep on a boat?
I keep 3 fire extinguishers in my house. Never had a need or use for any one of them. But I keep them.
I also have a number of firearms. I shoot them for recreation, and use them to shoo away the errant bear. The dogs scare off the coyotes. The moose, well, we leave them alone.
Ya see, I don’t really care if you feel a need for a life preserver made of nylon, or one made of steel. A Life preserver could be a book of matches, or an extra subway token to get home. I don’t care one bit.
Yes I have firearms. I was never ‘pro’ gun until I read some of the silliness of those that are so anti-gun. So, I guess because I own guns, I’m ‘pro’ gun. Not to big on labels myself.
:shrug:.
Do you really want to find out, or do you think shouting “why?” over and over again without waiting for a response is all you need to contribute here? If you don’t mind, I’m going to take that first question to Great Debates and see if we can get some answers.