Oh, for fuck's sake. Are you gonna ban rocks next?

[Broomstick]

*Originally posted by Princhester *
Yep they’re pretty damn crappy killing tools, according to a quick google, there are only about 20,000 handgun deaths in the US every year.

And 50,000 people a year are killed in car accidents. Since I deal with cars every single day of my life, I’m actually more worried, day-to-day, about driving than about being shot at. I am more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.

Also, as I have mentioned, gun problems are concentrated into small areas and by avoiding those areas I avoid almost all likelihood of gun problems Cars… cars are everywhere. I can’t move away from that problem without extreme measures (parts of Alaska, for instance, are without roads and cars, but then you’re dealing with a harsh environment and some wildlife that would be happy to have you for dinner).

A google on meatcleavers and annual deaths brought up no results. Either meatcleaver killings are very rare or subject to a government cover up. Hard to say which, really.

Or else they’re listed under “edged weapons” or some other term. You know as well as I do that how you word the question is important to Google.

there are about 250 or 300 homicides per year in Oklahoma, and about 60% of those are gun related, and most of those are handgun deaths. Every year.

Fertilizer and diesel killed 168 one year, care of McVeigh. Nothing before, nothing since.

Not true. As an example, Chicago experienced a number of bombings in the early 1970’s coutesy of a Puerto Rican separatist group - although nothing on the scale of McVeigh’s bomb, they did kill a few people. McVeigh’s bomb got a lot of publicity, but there have been bombs before and since.

The worst death toll of a man-with-gun sceanario I can recall was around 18. McVeigh killed 168. Thank god bombs are not as common as guns. If you consider one man with one weapon, bombs are a lot more deadlier than guns. If we took away guns maybe the criminals would go to knives (probably the average mugger would) but what if they don’t? What if, instead of a disgruntled worker using a gun to kill 5 or 6 people he uses a bomb to bring down a whole building and kill dozens or hundreds?

So in it’s best year, the ole fertilizer and diesel managed to equal gun deaths in Oklahoma, achieved less than 1% of the handgun total for the whole of the US and less than 0.1% of the handgun total over a 10 year period. I sure am worried about that fertilizer and diesel.

I live in a semi-rural area. I have neighbors who have both amonimum nitrate fertilizer (bought by the ton) and diesel fuel (bought by the tander). They use it on their farms. We have several places in the area where you can rent a van or truck. All the elements used by McVeigh exist within a mile of my home. Do I loose sleep over it? Not really. They may have the means, but no motivation. Likewise, the gun owners I know are responsible people who have no motivation to harm anyone, and most go through considerable trouble to make sure their weapons are secured or even inoperable when transported or stored. As an example, a couple I know who hunt deer actually store their rifles in their home in a partially disassembled manner - they can’t go off even accidently.

I would no more “freak out” to learn a neighbor owned a gun than I would “freak out” to learn they possessed fertilizer and diesel fuel. Possession of those items do not inherently mean death and destruction.

Now, if the nieghbor in question had 500 guns and a living room full of ammo boxes - THAT would be a problem. Or a small apartment in Chicago full of diesel and fertilizer. Which is why both guns and amonium nitrate have controls and regulations on them, to make it difficult to acquire them in such quantities without legitimate reason.

Head still in the sand I see, Broomstick.

Not at all - I just have a completely different view of the situation.

[Broomstick]

Look, it doesn’t matter to me if Australians want to ban or severely restrict gun owership and they’re happy with that. It’s not my country, it’s theirs. But I don’t think a gun ban would work here.

From what I’ve read here, Australia never had the quantity of guns the US had. They’ve always been more regulated.

In the US, from the earliest days of the English colonies, the French trappers, and the Spanish Conquistadors the Euro-folks have been heavily armed. It wasn’t that long before the natives acquired guns and expertise in their use. Some of the Plains tribes had guns and learned to make bullets before they ever encountered white people. In the 16th and 17th centuries everyone was heavily armed. That continued well into the 19th Century. There are a LOT of guns out there, some of them quite old. If you banned guns — how would you ever know you had collected them all?

As a further example - two days ago in Chicago a “disgruntled former employee” of Windy City Core Supply (auto supply warehouse) obtained a handgun and killed six people. This is bad. However – guns have been illegal in Chicago for close to 20 years. Huh. Well, the nerve of a criminal breaking the law like that! The man was a convicted felon - he couldn’t legally own any weapon, gun or sword or pepper spray. Yet… he did. They did recover the gun - it was first sold in 1967 which, if I have my facts right, makes it older than the gunman. So it wasn’t a new gun he bought, it was something from out of the past. The problem isn’t just the buying and selling of guns now, it’s also a matter of a lot of weapons bought legally decades ago now floating around in the criminal underworld. Sometimes for decades.

So, in the US we have the problem of a LOT of guns produced and sold in the past hanging around. We have very ineffective means of keeping them out of the hands of Bad People. (Good People in Chicago who obey the law of course do not posses handguns). Just passing a law does not eliminate the problem. You need to be able to effectively enforce that law. It’s no good to simply ban guns - you have to actually do the work to get rid of them. All of them. Or it will be the criminals who have them and the rest of the population doesn’t, which makes for a very unfair situation.

If Australia, Great Britain, etc. never had the build up of guns in the first place then they have a much different situation. For better or worse, though, we can’t go back and change that historical circumstance, we have to deal with what we have right now. But part of the problem of effective gun control in the US is the problem of so many weapons that came into existance before the present day. If your country does not have this problem then so much the better for you.

[Aro]

Broomstick, I’m probably not qualified to answer these questions definitively, having no contact or interest with guns in general, but this is my (meagre) understanding of the situation here:

Couple questions, though - how are guns transported from one facility to another? (I’m presuming they are occasionally bought, repaired, people moved, etc.)

All purchases are made (I think) through the club (or the firearms dealer)- membership of which is restricted to vetted people who have to be recommended by an existing member. You can’t just turn up and join. On the transfer of weapons / ammunition, (from here - PDF)
“the transferee must produce to the transferor the certificate or permit entitling him to purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition being transferred…<snip>…and must receive it in person”. So it all happens under strict certification.

What about hunting? Or is hunting banned in your area?

There is nothing to hunt in NI, really, although certain farmers / landowners do have licences to have shooting parties on their land, usually wild fowl or game. Participants generally use shotguns which can be privately owned under licence or borrowed from a licensed owner if on private land. I don’t know of the details of these events, having never participated. I can find out details this weekend if you’re still curious.

What about museum collections or the like? Or do you have those?

There are many old collectible guns in displays all over NI, and some in private houses too. I honestly have no clue as to their legal status, but I presume that their inability to fire would render them as antiques rather than firearms.

Not a very useful answer, I’m afraid.

[Desmostylus]

Always useful to have real numbers.

Australian Institute of Criminology: Homicide rate stable - knives the consistent weapon of choice

In 1999-2000, as in previous years, the highest proportion of homicide victims were killed with a knife or other sharp instrument (29.1%). Assaultive force (using hands and feet) ranked second (24.0%), and homicide by firearm third (19.3%, representing 65 victims).

1998 Californian Homicides by Weapon Type

                                      Number Percent
Total including unknown............... 2,170
Unknown............................... 36
Total known........................... 2,134  100.0
 Firearm.............................. 1,469  68.8
  Handgun............................. 1,315  61.6 
  All other firearms.................. 154    7.2
   Rifle.............................. 89     4.2
   Shotgun............................ 57     2.7
   Other firearm...................... 0      0.0 
   Firearm - unknown type............. 8      0.4
 Knife................................ 289    13.5
 Blunt object......................... 117    5.5
 Personal weapon...................... 112    5.2
 All other............................ 147    6.9
  Rope................................ 63     3.0
  Drugs............................... 2      0.1
  Other............................... 82     3.8

That was all I could find quickly, I’m not trying to single out California or those particular years. If anyone has better data, feel free to post it.

The population of Australia is 20 m, the population of California is 35 m. Note the disparity in handgun homicide numbers: 65 v 1,315.

[Desmostylus]

I should also point out that the non-gun homicide rates for California and Australia are roughly comparable to each other. California’s rate is about 1.4 times higher than Australia’s for non-guns, but 13 times higher for guns.

[Richard_Pearse]

I don’t mind what they do with swords, knives, guns and stuff. So long as nobody takes away my god given right to carry a concealed 1920s style “death ray” gun

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Broomstick *
**And 50,000 people a year are killed in car accidents. Since I deal with cars every single day of my life, I’m actually more worried, day-to-day, about driving than about being shot at. I am more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.

**

Your point to which I was responding was that handguns are crappy killing tools. Handguns kill a lot of people, which suggests that your point was wrong. The fact that something else also kills a lot of people does not make your point right. You need to brush up on basic logic.

**

Or else they’re listed under “edged weapons” or some other term. You know as well as I do that how you word the question is important to Google.

**

Or else your head is firmly in the sand. Check out Desmo’s figures.

**

Not true. As an example, Chicago experienced a number of bombings in the early 1970’s coutesy of a Puerto Rican separatist group - although nothing on the scale of McVeigh’s bomb, they did kill a few people. McVeigh’s bomb got a lot of publicity, but there have been bombs before and since.

**

What a crock. According to this site over 100 bombs were planted, few even caused injuries, and one killed 4. Well that certainly advances your argument, doesn’t it Broomstick?

So now you have come up with a grand total of 172 people over a 30 year period killed by domestic bombs in the US. No doubt there are a few more than that. But do you seriously think the numbers are going to amount to a fraction of a smidgen of a hint of the 600,000 (20,000 a year) killed over the same period by handguns? The more you make this sort of comment, the more clear it is to everyone except, seemingly, you that you are just absolutely determined not to admit the blindingly obvious.

**The worst death toll of a man-with-gun sceanario I can recall was around 18. McVeigh killed 168. Thank god bombs are not as common as guns. If you consider one man with one weapon, bombs are a lot more deadlier than guns. If we took away guns maybe the criminals would go to knives (probably the average mugger would) but what if they don’t? What if, instead of a disgruntled worker using a gun to kill 5 or 6 people he uses a bomb to bring down a whole building and kill dozens or hundreds?

**

Forget thanking god, forget what ifs, why not just deal with reality? I know it is inconvenient but, well, it is what it is. Handguns kill heaps of people, bombs and meatcleavers don’t, and it is interesting to speculate why you are so reluctant to acknowledge this obvious fact.

I have no problem with you taking the data about guns and processing it and arriving at an ultimate conclusion about your attitude to guns that I might not agree with. I just get cranky when I see someone trying to ignore the basic data out of existence.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Broomstick *
The point (which obviously I failed to convey) is that handguns are not Super Death Rays. Waving a handgun in the air does not cause all living creatures within a half mile to drop dead.

Hey Skogcat what’s the kill zone on that 1920’s style death ray of yours? Does it fall into the “Super” category? Or is it just an “Regular” death ray with the standard quarter mile kill zone?

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by Aro *
**
This allows those who wish to fire guns for sport to partake in their hobby safely and responsibly without creating a paranoid culture of ‘need’ in which citizens think they require the ability to protect themselves. **

Does this make anyone else shiver? How meek does one have to be to be afraid of people ‘thinking they require the ability to protect themselves’ is something to be shunned?

God forbid we have people who are self sufficient and confident enough to take care of themselves. The horror.

[Princhester]

SenorBeef I think Aro’s point is that a culture in which people have a paranoid (false) belief that they face high levels of danger, such that they feel an exaggerated need to protect themselves when they do not, is a bad thing. Not that people shouldn’t take responsibility for doing so if they need to.

[Richard_Pearse]

*Originally posted by Princhester *
**Hey Skogcat what’s the kill zone on that 1920’s style death ray of yours? Does it fall into the “Super” category? Or is it just an “Regular” death ray with the standard quarter mile kill zone? **

I bought it as a stock standard death ray but have had the “super” retro-fit to increase the kill zone. Problem is the power supply was not really designed to handle it so I’m thinking of going back to the original.

[Broomstick]

Originally posted by Princhester

Originally posted by Broomstick
And 50,000 people a year are killed in car accidents. Since I deal with cars every single day of my life, I’m actually more worried, day-to-day, about driving than about being shot at. I am more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.

Your point to which I was responding was that handguns are crappy killing tools. Handguns kill a lot of people, which suggests that your point was wrong. The fact that something else also kills a lot of people does not make your point right. You need to brush up on basic logic.

You need to consider taking your arguments to Great Debates rather than the Pit.

Compared to a shotgun or rifle a handgun is not particularly effective. Compared to a plastic fork, a handgun is an effective killing tool. Hence, one of my earlier points about a shotgun being much more effective for home defense than a handgun (or plastic fork). Please try to keep up with the rest of us, dear.

And you completely missed my point that, on a day-to-day basis, I am, in fact, much more worried about car accidents than one of my neighbors going berserk with a gun. Which is true - it’s how I feel. Now, you may wish to discuss whether my feelings are based on emotions or study of the facts leading to logical conclusions… but I don’t care to.

Part of the problem is that you are so fixated on your own position that you fail to see that this is more than just a discussion of statistics.

Nonetheless, cars DO kill more people per year than guns.

Originally posted by Princhester

Originally posted by Broomstick
Or else they’re listed under “edged weapons” or some other term. You know as well as I do that how you word the question is important to Google.

Or else your head is firmly in the sand. Check out Desmo’s figures.

I did. Very imformative. However, would a meat cleaver come under “knife” or “other”?

By the way, do you suffer from silicaphillia? You seem to be strangely fixated on sand and heads…

Originally posted by Princhester
What a crock. According to this site over 100 bombs were planted, few even caused injuries, and one killed 4. Well that certainly advances your argument, doesn’t it Broomstick?

May I refresh your memory of one of your prior posts?

Originally posted by Princhester
Fertilizer and diesel killed 168 one year, care of McVeigh. Nothing before, nothing since.

Well, in fact there HAVE been other instances of bombs killing people in the US. I was NOT debating the number of dead, merely stating that McVeigh’s caper was not a unique instance (although unusual for the sheer number killed).

And, as usual, you’re running off to show how it “proves” your stance. Well, in part we’re discussing cultures and emotional reactions here, neither of which is susceptible to “proof” of the sort you seem to be after.

Originally posted by Princhester
The more you make this sort of comment, the more clear it is to everyone except, seemingly, you that you are just absolutely determined not to admit the blindingly obvious.

I’m sorry, Prin, but jumping up and down and screaming “I’m right! I’m right!” does not make for a convincing argument. Particuarly since it’s becoming more and more obvious that we aren’t discussing precisely the same thing.

Originally posted by Princhester
Forget thanking god, forget what ifs, why not just deal with reality? I know it is inconvenient but, well, it is what it is. Handguns kill heaps of people, bombs and meatcleavers don’t, and it is interesting to speculate why you are so reluctant to acknowledge this obvious fact.

Hmm… no, never denied handguns can and do kill people, just deny that it’s as overwhelming a problem as some people think it is.

And yes, bombs DO kill “heaps of people”. That’s why people use bombs. The fact they are infrequently used in the US does not detract from their effectiveness. Which is my point about cultural expressions of violence. Which aparently “whooshed” in your case.

I just get cranky when I see someone trying to ignore the basic data out of existence.

I’m not ignoring the data. I am, however, reaching a different conclusion. This is a common problem in arguments. The idea that if the other person just knew the facts, all the facts, they would come around to your way of thinking. Well, they don’t. It is entirely possible for two people to look at the exact same pile of facts and come to entirely different conclusions. It has nothing to do with “hiding my head in the sand”, it has to do with my risk assessment and tolerance being very different from yours. My RA&T has to do with my past experiences, upbringing, personal beliefs, and basic personality, not with facts and statistics. I do have a higher than typical tolerance of risk. This is likely one area it shows up.

[robertliguori]

The fact that something else also kills a lot of people does not make your point right. You need to brush up on basic logic.

Well, if you’re arguing against handguns soley on the basis that they kill people, you should be arguing against automobiles 2.5 times as hard, logically speaking.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Broomstick *
**

Your point to which I was responding was that handguns are crappy killing tools. Handguns kill a lot of people, which suggests that your point was wrong. The fact that something else also kills a lot of people does not make your point right. You need to brush up on basic logic.

**

You need to consider taking your arguments to Great Debates rather than the Pit.

Why? Does logic follow some bizarro rules here that are different to GD? In the pit does fact A become untrue if fact B is true, even if A and B are not mutually exclusive? Why wasn’t I told? How embarrassing.

Compared to a shotgun or rifle a handgun is not particularly effective. Compared to a plastic fork, a handgun is an effective killing tool. Hence, one of my earlier points about a shotgun being much more effective for home defense than a handgun (or plastic fork). Please try to keep up with the rest of us, dear.

OMG I being patronised. The pain, the pain.

But you are certainly hard to keep up with, I’ll grant you that. In rather the same way it is hard to keep track of a blancmange.
First you’re saying that handguns aren’t an effective killing tool, then you’re saying that they aren’t because there are other things that are, then you’re saying that they aren’t because lots of people are killed in car accidents, and now that they are, but only compared to a fork.

And you completely missed my point that, on a day-to-day basis, I am, in fact, much more worried about car accidents than one of my neighbors going berserk with a gun. Which is true - it’s how I feel. Now, you may wish to discuss whether my feelings are based on emotions or study of the facts leading to logical conclusions… but I don’t care to.

Broomstick, it went like this:

Broomstick: handguns aren’t that effective as killing tools, they’re not much more effective than meatcleavers or power tools.

Princhester: yes they are, check out the obvious statistics.

Broomstick: No, because cars kill lots of people and I’m more worried about that.

Sure you are, and fair enough too, so am I but the point is, you silly sod, that your original point (ie that handguns are not much more effective killers than powertools etc) is still crap, and it’s going to be crap no matter how much you try to pretend you never made it, and no matter how much you try to change the subject.

Part of the problem is that you are so fixated on your own position that you fail to see that this is more than just a discussion of statistics.

I do see that this argument as a whole (ie the whole gun control debate) is more than a matter of statistics. Indeed, I have specifically acknowledged that twice now. But I think that the matter is best served by a solid factual basis. And in particular, my point is that a basic datum that you put forward, namely that handguns are not much more of an effective killing tool than powertools etc is crap.

Nonetheless, cars DO kill more people per year than guns.

Indeed. And my father’s name is Bill and my grandfather’s name was Jack. Got any more irrelevant dross you wish to mention to avoid the point I was making, namely that your point that handguns are not much more of an effective killing tool than powertools etc is crap, and is going to remain crap now matter how many other common causes of death you point to.

Or else your head is firmly in the sand. Check out Desmo’s figures.

I did. Very imformative. However, would a meat cleaver come under “knife” or “other”?

Who cares since either way it would not make any difference to the fact that your original point namely that handguns are not much more of an effective killing tool than powertools etc is still crap, because both categories pale into insignificance compared to handgun deaths.

May I refresh your memory of one of your prior posts?

Well, in fact there HAVE been other instances of bombs killing people in the US. I was NOT debating the number of dead, merely stating that McVeigh’s caper was not a unique instance (although unusual for the sheer number killed).

Yes you are right, I made an absolute statement and you pointed out that my statement was very slightly and totally insignificantly wrong, while your point which I was addressing, namely that handguns are not much more of an effective killing tool than powertools etc is still crap.

And, as usual, you’re running off to show how it “proves” your stance. Well, in part we’re discussing cultures and emotional reactions here, neither of which is susceptible to “proof” of the sort you seem to be after.

No, I’m not discussing that. I’m discussing the fact your point which I was addressing, namely that handguns are not much more of an effective killing tool than powertools etc is crap.

I’m sorry, Prin, but jumping up and down and screaming “I’m right! I’m right!” does not make for a convincing argument.

Quite. Just as well I’ve never done so. I’ve instead presented statistics that show that your point which I was addressing, namely that handguns are not much more of an effective killing tool than powertools etc is still crap. And your response has been to try to change the subject.

And yes, bombs DO kill “heaps of people”. That’s why people use bombs. The fact they are infrequently used in the US does not detract from their effectiveness. Which is my point about cultural expressions of violence. Which aparently “whooshed” in your case.

172 in 30 years is the best you can come up with so far, as against about 600,000 for handguns. I’m amazed you keep bringing bombs up, in the circumstances. And even if bombs were huge killers, which statistically they are not, it would not alter the fact that your point which I was addressing, namely that handguns are not much more of an effective killing tool than powertools etc is still crap.

I’m not ignoring the data.

Oh I think you are. When you say “this tree is not much different to that shrub” and someone says to you “well actually the tree is about ten times higher” and you then say “no the tree is not much taller than the shrub because over there is a slightly taller tree and besides which there are buildings twice as tall as that” there’s some pretty desperate ignoring of the data going on.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**Well, if you’re arguing against handguns soley on the basis that they kill people, you should be arguing against automobiles 2.5 times as hard, logically speaking. **

I’m not arguing against handguns at all, I’m arguing that it is dumbass to say that handguns are not much more effective killing tools than meatcleavers and power tools.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Broomstick *
You need to consider taking your arguments to Great Debates rather than the Pit.

Jesus Lord. That’s the most fucked-up response I’ve ever seen.

[wyntar]

Linky Oz guy uses Katana in home defence

Need to register so quick rundown.

Seems one of the forum members just scared a would be thief off with a Katana :-)

[Broomstick]

Demo, if Prin wants a nice, civilized discussion with charts, graphs, tables, cites, double-blind studies and so forth that’s much more like to be found in GD than the BBQP, although some days I will admit there’s not much distinction when you get down to it.

Although now that Prin is on the verge of having a meltdown because I haven’t fallen to my knees and seen the light of his brilliance maybe he does belong here.

Prin keeps waving his statistics of 20,000 handgun deaths a year around, as if regurgitating the same fact over and over is going to change someone’s mind. Not to metion he keeps twisting my arguments around - hence his need to paraphrase rather than use direct quotes.

I never denied that handguns can kill - but if I personally wanted to kill someone (which I don’t, this is strictly hypothetical) I don’t consider them to be a good choice because there are more effective means of doing someone in - such as rifles or shotguns. Require less skill for the same effect. Or, if I was intent on mass killing (which, again, I am not) one bomb has far greater potential than one handgun. In other words, I was not debating whether or not guns COULD kill people, or DID kill people, or even how many people were killed by them but rather that handguns were not Super Killing Machines. There are, in fact, other common things (such as cars) that are more likely to kill the average American than a gun of any sort.

This in no way contradicts what Prin said. Fact is, if I was possessed of a desire to buy and own a handgun it would either be for target practice (in which case, I’d buy a gun suitable for that) or for personal defense. If is was for personal defense then I’d want a handgun with maximum “stopping power”. I mean, what’s the point otherwise? If I ever point a gun at another human being (a situation I would much prefer to avoid by running away, given the slightest opportunity, rather than fighting) it will not be with the attention of causing only a little harm or firing a warning shot or making threats. If I pull and point it’s going to be a life-or-death situation and I will not be playing games. Since I do not want to be put in a situation where I may have to kill another human being I try very hard to avoid such situations, or the places where they are likely to occur. Hence, my moving 300 miles away from home at the age of 18, avoidance of bad neighborhoods and activities like drug dealing and theft that greatly increase the likelihood of shoot-or-be-shot situations.

One thing your stats on hanguns death does NOT reveal is how many of those incidents were criminal - and how many were legitimate self-defense or “justified firings” by cops. THAT statistic would be interesting. If 3/4 of handgun deaths were of people directly threatening other people - in other words, the Bad Guy died rather than the potential victim, or the police killed a Bad Guy to stop him doing Bad Things - I’d see that as an argument in favor of personal defense side arms. If the majority are Good Guys being killed by Bad Guys then it becomes an argument against handguns. But until you know that breakdown it’s like saying 50,000 Americans die on the road each year - yes, it looks bad, but it doesn’t tell you whether this is 50,000 irresposible drunken idiots or 50,000 brake failures or 50,000 instances of really really bad weather doing people in.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Broomstick *
Demo, if Prin wants a nice, civilized discussion with charts, graphs, tables, cites, double-blind studies and so forth that’s much more like to be found in GD than the BBQP, although some days I will admit there’s not much distinction when you get down to it.

In other words, “facts and logic make my position untenable and I would prefer they are not used against me, although I admit this is the SDMB where logic and facts reign supreme even in the Pit so I’m not really sure what my own point is…”

Although now that Prin is on the verge of having a meltdown because I haven’t fallen to my knees and seen the light of his brilliance maybe he does belong here.

All I’ve done is point out that a tool that kills 20,000 people a year is an effective killing tool, and that a tool that kills 20,000 people a year is more dangerous object than a hacksaw or a meatcleaver. Frankly I don’t consider myself to be brilliant for pointing this out, but if that’s what passes for brilliance in your part of the world…

Prin keeps waving his statistics of 20,000 handgun deaths a year around, as if regurgitating the same fact over and over is going to change someone’s mind. Not to metion he keeps twisting my arguments around - hence his need to paraphrase rather than use direct quotes.

I don’t have to twist your arguments around, you do that well enough yourself. And I have no delusions by now that mere facts are of any interest to you. After all, we are talking about someone who has just posted to the effect that I should go elsewhere because cites are making you uncomfortable.

**I never denied that handguns can kill - but if I personally wanted to kill someone (which I don’t, this is strictly hypothetical) I don’t consider them to be a good choice because there are more effective means of doing someone in - such as rifles or shotguns. Require less skill for the same effect. Or, if I was intent on mass killing (which, again, I am not) one bomb has far greater potential than one handgun. In other words, I was not debating whether or not guns COULD kill people, or DID kill people, or even how many people were killed by them but rather that handguns were not Super Killing Machines. There are, in fact, other common things (such as cars) that are more likely to kill the average American than a gun of any sort.

This in no way contradicts what Prin said.

**

Yes, this in no way contradicts what I said, because it is a giant strawman you have constructed all for yourself. No one is debating with you whether guns can or do kill, or whether they are Super Killing Machines, or whether cars are also dangerous.

Your original comment was that guns and tablesaws (and later even hacksaws) were analogous because they were all just tools, and if you were going to ban guns then logically you had to ban hacksaws. I then said that there is a clear distinction between the two, that guns are exceedingly effective killing tools and ordinary tools are not, so therefore your argument reductio ad absurdum does not work.

And you have been trying to filibuster and change the subject and construct strawmen ever since, in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that your original point was not the steaming pile of crap that it so obviously is.

Fact is, if I was possessed of a desire to buy and own a handgun it would either be for target practice (in which case, I’d buy a gun suitable for that) or for personal defense.

Well you know, according to you:

the average handgun is a pretty crappy killing tool

so why wouldn’t you just buy a hacksaw? It’s much cheaper, and according to you, pretty much in the same category when it comes to killing.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Broomstick *
Demo, if Prin wants a nice, civilized discussion with charts, graphs, tables, cites, double-blind studies and so forth that’s much more like to be found in GD than the BBQP, although some days I will admit there’s not much distinction when you get down to it.

In other words, “facts and logic make my position untenable and I would prefer they are not used against me, although I admit this is the SDMB where logic and facts reign supreme even in the Pit so I’m not really sure what my own point is…”

Although now that Prin is on the verge of having a meltdown because I haven’t fallen to my knees and seen the light of his brilliance maybe he does belong here.

All I’ve done is point out that a tool that kills 20,000 people a year is an effective killing tool, and that a tool that kills 20,000 people a year is more dangerous object than a hacksaw or a meatcleaver. Frankly I don’t consider myself to be brilliant for pointing this out, but if that’s what passes for brilliance in your part of the world…

Prin keeps waving his statistics of 20,000 handgun deaths a year around, as if regurgitating the same fact over and over is going to change someone’s mind. Not to metion he keeps twisting my arguments around - hence his need to paraphrase rather than use direct quotes.

I don’t have to twist your arguments around, you do that well enough yourself. And I have no delusions by now that mere facts are of any interest to you. After all, we are talking about someone who has just posted to the effect that I should go elsewhere because cites are making you uncomfortable.

**I never denied that handguns can kill - but if I personally wanted to kill someone (which I don’t, this is strictly hypothetical) I don’t consider them to be a good choice because there are more effective means of doing someone in - such as rifles or shotguns. Require less skill for the same effect. Or, if I was intent on mass killing (which, again, I am not) one bomb has far greater potential than one handgun. In other words, I was not debating whether or not guns COULD kill people, or DID kill people, or even how many people were killed by them but rather that handguns were not Super Killing Machines. There are, in fact, other common things (such as cars) that are more likely to kill the average American than a gun of any sort.

This in no way contradicts what Prin said.

**

Yes, this in no way contradicts what I said, because it is a giant strawman you have constructed all for yourself. No one is debating with you whether guns can or do kill, or whether they are Super Killing Machines, or whether cars are also dangerous.

Your original comment was that guns and tablesaws (and later even hacksaws) were analogous because they were all just tools, and if you were going to ban guns then logically you had to ban hacksaws. I then said that there is a clear distinction between the two, that guns are exceedingly effective killing tools and ordinary tools are not, so therefore your argument reductio ad absurdum does not work.

And you have been trying to filibuster and change the subject and construct strawmen ever since, in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that your original point was not the steaming pile of crap that it so obviously is.

Fact is, if I was possessed of a desire to buy and own a handgun it would either be for target practice (in which case, I’d buy a gun suitable for that) or for personal defense.

Well you know, according to you:

the average handgun is a pretty crappy killing tool

so why wouldn’t you just buy a hacksaw? It’s much cheaper, and according to you, pretty much in the same category when it comes to killing.