No, what you have is 2 people suggesting that your assertion that guns are only good for killing people (in a bad way) is inaccurate. There are most certainly other uses for guns.
I’m sorry, you asked if we needed to defend ourselves from Germans. I thought you were kidding. You don’t need guns for defense. Just like you don’t need cars for transportation (see another way in which an analogy can be drawn). However, as tools for defense go, guns work pretty well. Being as they are, designed to kill.
Well, no one suggested that such weapons were needed for hunting. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, UncleBeer specifically said that many of the other types of guns manufactured out there is evidence that killing people is not the only use to which guns are put. You were the one making the odd connection between this point and the banning of assaullt weapons. If you want more information on this point, you may have to make this association more cogently.
BTW, do you know what an assault weapon is?
No, they don’t. Even as hyperbole. Sorry, but this goes too far. Unfortunately, you are probably not alone. The phrase has been applied to everything from SCO to global warming. But the common understanding of a weapon which can kill massive amounts of people with a single use simply does not apply to guns. Guns (and other convetional weapons) are the baseline against which we measure weather a proposed WMD is in fact capable of MD.
Example:
I have an adequate backstop for my .50 cal MG and I’m having a great time disintigrating 55 gal water drums in my huge backyard when an earthquake destroys my stand and the trigger gets caught on my shoelace launching seven-hundred five-ounce copper/lead projectiles at a 45 degree angle about 10 miles down the road into a flock of endangered albino wartpigeons.
OK, I agree that there has to be a reasonable surety of community safety established, so to use an M-79 grenade launcher, I’d have to consider the maximum range, schrapnel spread and security of my fencing as well.
So, in order to qualify as a private use on private property, the range and destructive power of the weapon in question would have to be limited to your private property. If your property were not large and secure enough, or the range/destructive power of the weapon greate enough, then any use would be considered “public” and thus subject to certain regulations.
Yes you did, it made you smile, remember?
To say you got no answer is a lie. Deliberate lying in GD is likely to get you banned, not that I’d mind, but when I was a newbie someone was nice enough to warn me, so I’m passing the favor on.
Another answer, re: why one needs a gun for self defense:
I had a very large person breaking into my house one night. He already had a baseball bat, so my baseball bat and/or a knife were useless. I pulled out a gun and just cocked it, and that noise alone scared the guy away. I saved three lives without even endangering one! Had he continued to break in I certainly would have needed the gun for self defense. Oh yes, my wife dialed 911, and got put on hold the guy had already left (but would have made it in) when she told them the emergency. They arrived 20 minutes later.
If I were to say that (to get back to the OP’s analogy) cars were used for transportation, and UncleBeer were to say that cars were used for racing, which of us would be wrong?
Random words strung together does not an answer make.
He broke into your home with the sole intent to bludgeon your family to death with a baseball bat, and the only thing that prevented this from happening was your gun? Sounds like a pretty crappy random criminal to me.
What if he had had a gun, and your act of cocking your gun would have required him to shoot you in the face, further requiring him to murder your family to get rid of possible witnesses?
You couldn’t have effected a similar strategy with your own bat? Martial arts? A knife? Screaming for neighbors? A burglar alarm? What burgler is going to charge in against (at least) two armed adults in their own home with alarms ringing, sirens in the distance, and neighbors crowding around?
As you duly noted in your post, burglers tend to be the frightful sort, with a desire to avoid jail time and bodily harm. When confronted, they generally retreat, not wanting to risk being hit on the back of the head with a bottle of wine and captured, or adding double murder to their rap sheet.
I’ve been stabbed three times in my life. Having a gun wouldn’t have helped much in any of these instances. Instead, I would be one dead little SOB. I’ve also been mugged on several occasions, and handing over what you have generally makes for a safer result than pulling out a gat.
There are also other uses for high explosives, landmines, and sarin, including but not limited to hunting and self defense.
You’re right, you don’t need guns for defense.
If your use for guns is sport shooting and hunting, then a ban on assault rifles isn’t going to bother you terribly, now is it?
I’m still trying to think of a witty answer to this… I’ll get back to you on it.
So you wouldn’t have a problem with someone busting out a .50 cal machine gun? You know, a massive release of a “WMD” like happened in Japan killed all of 12 people. How many people died at Columbine?
Well, given that the US is has developed and is developing large scale weapons such as the MOAB, which are capable of slaughtering thousands of people in an instant, and are still defined as “conventional weapons” when compared to a neurotoxic that can kill a dozen people, sure.
It’s OK if you kill 100 civilians with a clusterbomb, but a horrible atrocity if you injure 2 people with a neurotoxin? Sure, buddy.
Nor does it make a debate or a rational argument. You are gibbering nonsense, you refuse to acknowledge information provided by others and you are even causing yourself to lose any ground in whatever argument you are trying to make.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you, whether English isn’t a language you are competent in or if you have mental/emotional issues, and hey, I don’t care. I’m not interested in entertaining your fantasies, however.
If you start making sense, I’ll pay attention. But I’m not going to hold my breath.
shrugs OK. I’m not the one saying I need assault rifles to protect against them ragheads with baseball bats sneaking into my house at 3 am to steal my baby and rape my safe or whatever.
But in the interest of fairness, what “information provided by others” have I refused to acknowledged? Your “villain trying to bludgeon me to death with a baseball bat” story?
And other uses for deer, phones, cats, and even pesky mosquitos. What does any of this sentence of yours have to do with anyting in this thread?
No, but they are one of the best choices.
Unless you have other uses for other guns. You know, when someone is not an artficial characture of a person and has real goals and aspirations.
How about an assault weapon is one which assaults my senses by being seen by me.
You ask the most odd questions. I have no idea what I ever said which would lead to to think that this is a relevant question.
Again with the odd questions. Why do you insist on doing this? Thank you for the brief attempt at a discussion. But unless you can show that a single person said that a single killing of anyone was ok in any way, please keep this sort of crap to yourself.
This whole thread is about analogies of guns to other items (specifically, cars). I stated that guns are more like landmines or nerve gas. Then someone started ranting about terrorism and baseball bats and guns not being WMDw, to which I replied that “WMD” is a stupid term and pointed out that “conventional” weapons such as guns can cause more damage than the horror of horror “WMDs.”
I still don’t see how an uzi is any different than a vial of neurotoxin, but OK.
Neither are we. No one here alledged such a thing. Are you hallucinating this as you go along?
For one, that no one answered you re: guns for self defense. After I obviously DID answer you.
Zagadka, you are either deluded, hallucinatory or dishonest, based on the above quotes from your posts. You refuse to acknowledge information by others then alledge that you have not so refused. Your own words prove you wrong. So, what do you have to say for yourself now?
Did you know which profession has the highest suicide rate?
It’s anaesthetists. This isn’t because anaesthetists have a higher incidence of depression or marital breakdown. Far from it, they have the same incidence of woes as the general population.
No, what causes the suicide rate is the ready availability of a painless means and the skill of implementation.
Certainly BF I apologise for the lack of clarity. By way of preface, I admit I haven’t read the body of the thread, so that may have contributed.
Anaesthetics/Guns:
The crux of the analogy is how much closer to lethal behaviour you are simply by having the item.
There is normally a “pause and reflect” that inhibits lethal behaviour by people. However people have their bad days, but on those days lethal behaviour is normally difficult to implement.
However the analogy shows that the factors that may tip people over the edge on their bad days are:
to a large extent, simply having the means to act with lethal consequences
having means that don’t take much physical effort or time.
It makes sense, if you think of people in a red heat of rage or depression.
but contrary to the myth, lethal behaviour is not
something that belongs to any discrete class of persons, say “criminals”
something that never crosses the mind of the civilised, educated or persons of any profession or class.
I hope this helps, I’ll make further efforts to clear up my thoughts if you ask.
Thanks for the clarification, sevastopol. While I think your post has some validity, I don’t think the analogy of proximity to firearms is a predictor of suicides. According to the CDC, suicide by firearms make up just over 50% of all suicides in the US. Whereas Japan, which has very strict gun control laws, had almost the same number of suicides but with a vastly smaller population, and almost everyone of them done without a firearm. (Stat years are US 2001, Japan 2003.)
A reasonable limit would be based on the distinction between a weapon that can be reliably targeted (e.g. a gun) and a weapon that is likely to damage innocent bystanders (e.g. a bomb, poison gas, etc). The former is obviously much better suited to justified self-defense use.
Reducing the number gun suicides by substituting bottle-of-pills (or whatever) suicides doesn’t impress me as a terribly useful accomplishment. Reducing suicide in general is outside the scope of “gun safety” policy proposals.
Reducing legitimate defensive use of guns by letting thugs get what they want without opposition is worse than nothing. Reducing it by getting criminals to stop committing crimes in the first place is, again, a different subject.
Thus, these cases should not be included in the statistics describing the problem Hemenway hopes to allieviate.
