I’m intending, actually, to write Obama’s campaign a long, encouraging, and involved letter about gun control and the AWB, and why it might be a better idea to be more nuanced about it.
Might ask for help with it in a bit. Not this week, Father’s Day is screwing up my free time.
[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
So, what exactly are these “Canadian attitudes” that you find idiotic? Or was that just a “no, YOU’RE a doody-head” type response?
[/QUOTE]
Right. I should go out of my way to explain why I think her ideas are stupid, when she never took the time or trouble to do the same when she brought the subject up to begin with.
That makes me a doody-head. Brilliant.
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
My point is, in 2005 every 34 MINUTES someone in the USA was accidentally injured with a firearm. This didn’t not include BB and pellet guns. You can say it’s a big country, lots of people blah blah blah… but you guys have some serious unsafe gun owners.
[/QUOTE]
Time has nothing to do with it. It is an irrelevant measurement used to draw upon emotion.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Right. I should go out of my way to explain why I think her ideas are stupid, when she never took the time or trouble to do the same when she brought the subject up to begin with.
That makes me a doody-head. Brilliant.
[/QUOTE]
I said attitudes, one that you are just reinforcing BTW. I grew up on a farm around guns, I have my FAC, and have a couple older guns here, but I will be buying a new .22 and probably a shotgun in the near future. Just so you know I am not a rabid anti-gun freak. My reasons for getting these guns are simple. I live on a farm, and for the safety and care of my animals, guns are a necessary tool. I can guarantee you though, they will be stored properly. This does not include in my truck, my purse, my jacket pocket or leaning on the wall behind the door.
[QUOTE= Don’t fight the hypothetical]
There is just as much chain in one as there is in the other. I think you are hung up on the legal definitions. I know it’s not prosecutable due to current laws, I’m arguing that it should be.
[/QUOTE]
No, there isn’t. And I’m not getting hung up on legal definitions. The law reflects what the people believe. This was an accident and is rightly not being prosecuted. A guy who drives 120 in a residential area (almost certainly) or on a highway (substantially certainly) will face criminal penalty because you don’t “forget” to drive the speed limit. You can, however, forget to put your safety on in walking situations.
[QUOTE= Sailboat]
Nah. Maybe legal scholarship says otherwise…it’s possible that bad predcedent and inane argument make it into the legal system. But Gramps didn’t forget to have his safety on…everyone knows that. He took his safety off because he wanted to shoot quickly. If I step on the accelerator because I want to drive quickly, I’m taking a risk with the lives of bystanders…but so is shooting reflexively, let alone walking around with the safety off pointing the gun at people. The two things may not be exactly parallel…but…uh…hell, they sure look exactly parallel.
[/QUOTE]
Are you KIDDING me?
It’s got nothing to do with precedent or argument. And how the hell do you know what Gramps was thinking or doing? You were not there, nor did you hear the evidence. You’re making assumptions of fact based on your own circumstances and beliefs, none of which are germane here.
“Walking around with the safety off pointing the gun at people” is so far from the few facts of the case that we DO know that I’m surprised your fingers were even able to TYPE the letters in that sequence.
Here, it is not just the law but the actual facts and common sense that are against you. It’s a formidable team. Again, like I said, it seems like no amount of logic is going to convince you. And that’s OK. Thank God you weren’t in that poor man’s potential jury pool.
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
I said attitudes…
[/QUOTE]
So did I.
What attitude about guns am I reinforcing? This whole exchange started b/c I was trying to point out that “I find American attitudes stupid” does nothing to advance dialogue.
What does that have to do with Canadians or Americans?
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Time has nothing to do with it. It is an irrelevant measurement used to draw upon emotion.
[/QUOTE]
If you are fine with your fellow gun enthusiasts accidentally shooting people, will remind me where you live please. I want to stay out of your neighbourhood.
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
If you are fine with your fellow gun enthusiasts accidentally shooting people, will remind me where you live please. I want to stay out of your neighbourhood.
[/QUOTE]
Another ridiculous statement.
Say there are 2 swimming pool related deaths per day in the US every year. If in ten years the number of swimming pools in the US doubles, and there are then 4 swimming pool related deaths per day, does that make swimming pools any more dangerous? No. That is why calculating deaths per day is a meaningless statistic, used only as an appeal to emotion.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
So did I.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Right. I should go out of my way to explain why I think her **ideas ** are stupid, when she never took the time or trouble to do the same when she brought the subject up to begin with.
That makes me a doody-head. Brilliant.
[/QUOTE]
No you didn’t.
We, in general have a very basic different philosophy when it come to guns. If you don’t understand that, then yes, you are a doody-heady.
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
No you didn’t.
*
[/QUOTE]
What the fuck? Yes I did:
[QUOTE=Labrdor Deceiver in post #51]
And I find Canadian attitudes equally idiotic. So what?
[/QUOTE]
Do you feel okay?
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
We, in general have a very basic different philosophy when it come to guns. If you don’t understand that, then yes, you are a doody-heady.
[/QUOTE]
How do you figure? You haven’t asked me what my philosophy is, nor have you gone out of your way to share yours. All you’ve said is that our attitudes are “stupid”.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Another ridiculous statement.
Say there are 2 swimming pool related deaths per day in the US every year. If in ten years the number of swimming pools in the US doubles, and there are then 4 swimming pool related deaths per day, does that make swimming pools any more dangerous? No. That is why calculating deaths per day is a meaningless statistic, used only as an appeal to emotion.
[/QUOTE]
The original OP has titled this thread “I pit gun fetishists who have accidents due to dumbass gun safety practices”
I am merely expanding on gun safety. The cold hard facts speak for them selves. You can muddy the waters with swimming pool deaths if you want, but the stats in my post 38 speak for themselves.
If you don’t have a problem with that, well, that reflects right back to my statement regarding the “stupid American attitudes” I was referring to. IMHO of course.
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
The original OP has titled this thread “I pit gun fetishists who have accidents due to dumbass gun safety practices”
I am merely expanding on gun safety. The cold hard facts speak for them selves. You can muddy the waters with swimming pool deaths if you want, but the stats in my post 38 speak for themselves.
[/quoTe]
No, they don’t speak to anything other than how many days of the year there are. What have you done to expand on gun safety?
Based on the above statement, you should avoid debate in the future. “If you don’t agree with me, then your attitudes are stupid” is a very, very immature attitude.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
How do you figure? You haven’t asked me what my philosophy is, nor have you gone out of your way to share yours. All you’ve said is that our attitudes are “stupid”.
[/QUOTE]
Geez, see post 104 for my philosophy, and obviously my comment regarding American attitudes is based on my experience and interaction with Americans. Go read some of the threads on guns here.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
No, they don’t speak to anything other than how many days of the year there are. What have you done to expand on gun safety?
Based on the above statement, you should avoid debate in the future. “If you don’t agree with me, then your attitudes are stupid” is a very, very immature attitude.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm… I think I am in the Pit, not Great Debates. So Fuck you you dim-witted PITA. If you want to continue with your circular talk, go open a thread in GD and debate to your hearts content.
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
Geez, see post 104 for my philosophy, and obviously my comment regarding American attitudes is based on my experience and interaction with Americans. Go read some of the threads on guns here.
[/QUOTE]
When I asked you this:
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
What does that have to do with Canadians or Americans?
[/QUOTE]
I was replying directly to this:
[QUOTE= FarmerChick]
I live on a farm, and for the safety and care of my animals, guns are a necessary tool. I can guarantee you though, they will be stored properly. This does not include in my truck, my purse, my jacket pocket or leaning on the wall behind the door.
[/QUOTE]
SInce you are doing all you can to duck the question, maybe I should ask again. Why do the actions you mentioned about yourself and your care of guns illustrate the difference b/t Canadian & American attitudes about guns?
Hint: They don’t. You just highlighted an attitude shared by a great many Americans. Those habits are no more Canadian than they are British, American, or Mexican.
[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
Ummm… I think I am in the Pit, not Great Debates. So Fuck you you dim-witted PITA. If you want to continue with your circular talk, go open a thread in GD and debate to your hearts content.
[/QUOTE]
What the hell? You have ducked several questions & points I have made, yet I have answered all of yours directly. You want to call my arguments circular? Grow up.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Right. I should go out of my way to explain why I think her ideas are stupid, when she never took the time or trouble to do the same when she brought the subject up to begin with.
That makes me a doody-head. Brilliant.
[/QUOTE]
She said “attitudes” not ideas. And, I never said you were a doody-head, I asked if it was a response of that nature.
Not big on reading comprehension, are you?
[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
She said “attitudes” not ideas. And, I never said you were a doody-head, I asked if it was a response of that nature.
Not big on reading comprehension, are you?
[/QUOTE]
Here we go again. I responded with the word “attitudes” the first time, as I’ve already pointed out. Quite frankly, I find this level of hair splitting to be tiresome, and I can’t figure out why in the hell you insist on acting like an ass, other than the fact that you feel obligated to do so in a pit thread.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
You may be right, but I don’t think it’s really all that unreasonable to call someone on emotionally charged language in an OP. That was a pretty blatant example of it.
I wouldn’t really know which side of the debate to go with until I had studied the US law pertaining to accidental deaths, but I doubt I would get extremely worked up about either side. The “gun-fetishist” comment in the OP, however, made me think “WTF?”
[/QUOTE]
The term “gun fetisihist” is a bit slanted. But Argent Towers responded to a story of a man killing his grandson due to poor safety as “a spate of bile” That is slanted.