for the record (re: guns thread)

I agree, we could certainly use more safety shields on our drill presses and belt sanders, but I don't see how this helps your argument in any way. Jon

A while back in my home town there was a woman who was having a conflict in her home with her [ex?] husband. He was armed with a gun; she was not. The police had been called out to the house, and had set up station around the house. Before acting, however, they went to each house on the street and in the area, knocked on the doors, waited for the people to answer, and then escorted the families to an area outside of the 'danger zone'. While that woman waited for the police to bring people outside of their homes”which took a good part of the day, and where they would be more likely to get shot anyway than just staying inside”, her [ex?] husband was busy pumping lead into her helpless, defenceless self.What if when she saw him coming she could've grabbed herself a gun?What if there was one loaded in her night stand for her to run to when he started raising his voice?What if she had that gun and it had accidentally discharged”something so many folks here claim as being a major problem?Well, in the first two cases, she might've died, sure, but her chances for surviving this little run-in with her [former?] partner would've increased. In the last instance, well, the outcome wouldn't 've been much different than it was because she didn't own a gun. I wonder what she would tell us all if she were here. Sadly, however, she, and many people in a situation where having a gun would've saved their lives, cannot be here today. For you anti-gunners, I suppose it works well when all of the credible witnesses against your point of view are being killed off; however, there is a slightly more humane variety of person around. This variety isn't interested in watching all of their opponents die just so they can win an argument; instead, they care about the value of a meaningful human life. And with that, they care of the rights of the people.@anti-gunners:
Which variety are you?Jon

Yep, and that's the point to which it was aiming.

Sounds like someone just relieved the responsibility of the gun and blamed one of the real problems: tensions get heated in densely-populated areas, and crimes will generally be higher. Remind me again how many very large cities the U.S. has? Most likely because there are people like you who would start panicking, and freaking out, and screaming at the top of their lungs like a little school girl if they saw someone with a gun. After all, no one wants to make you uncomfortable in what is obviously a country whose laws are meant to be set up around your beliefs and moral values. Sure you don't like guns”you'd rather see away with them, and probably only want just tighter restrictions for the purpose of seeming as though you are willing to compromise”, but just because of all that, does it mean everyone should also be equally as pleased about the possibilities of having their rights infringed upon?Does it seem as though they actually are? Did you read jar's posts? It's not meant to be a deterrent. The purpose for carrying around a hand gun is for self protection if the need arises. Why do you try to make everyone who caries a handgun out to be some crazy lunatic red-neck who's as trigger happy as a little boy on his birthday?Jon

No, just the people worth saving. I can think of one person in that situation”*cough*ex-husband*cough*”who would not have been very safe in that situation.Of course, I could really just sum up this post in two words:slippery slope

Guns are the medium through which many murders take place. We cannot argue with that, and I do not believe anyone here has tried to argue with that point yet. What we on this side of the fence see, however, is that y'all on your side of the fence are trying to put even a partial amount of blame on the guns; this is something you should not do. Consider the following analogy:I'm driving my car through some windy roads that circle around and between several lakes. I bend down to pick something up off the floor, and *BAM*, my car breaks off the through the side rail and goes rolling into the lake. I turn my window down, get out, and quickly swim to safety. My car, on the other hand, is not so lucky, and it sinks to the bottom of the lake, with everything inside being damaged by the water; completely un-salvageable. Now, we all know that my stuff”and perhaps even my entire car”would be safe and okay today if that lake hadn't been there. Hell, if not for the lake, there probably wouldn't 've been even a valley there, just a field, at road level... my car would be doing fine to this day. So, who should I blame? Should we drain all the lakes just so people don't drive their cars into them? It will reduce the number of deaths that occur that way. Now, of course punishing and/or blaming the lake is stupid as Hell. The lake is simply an unsuspecting medium through which a tragic event can occur. The underlying problem is generally inattentive driving. The same is true of guns; they are just an unsuspecting medium through which tragic events can occur. The underlying problem is the people who carry them.Now, I know very well that simply draining the lake getting rid of/reducing the number of guns would help to lower the number of gun deaths, but it's a superficial fix to the problem. Generally, it's a fix proposed by those who don't want to deal with the real problem. It's a fix that the driver of that car might propose, to alleviate the blame on him and pass it onto someone else. Reducing the number of guns will definitely reduce the amount of gun violence, no doubt, but it's just another case of people who aren't willing to put the blame where it really lies: themselves, and the problems that their ignorance brings to society.Jon

I have never said that isn't an option. I am as much for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, as I am for restricting people from driving near lakes who have a habit of crashing their cars into them

No, most industrialized nations want to keep nukes out of the hands of other nations, but that's a side point. I agree that there should be more restrictions on who has access to the guns. People who are violent criminals shouldn't have them. People who are mentally/emotionally unstable shouldn't have them. It's the same way that we wouldn't let a 3 year old play with matches.Jon

Maybe you remember the woman a while back who drowned her children in the bathtub. That was intentional; should we outlaw bathtubs too?Tell me, why is it that you want to put such tight restrictions on gun ownership?

So? If you stole my car, got a bunch of friends in the back seat, and then drove it into the lake just so you could kill yourself along with all your friends”or Hell, even just on ACCIDENT”, should I be held responsible because I didn't keep my car keys locked away in a safe made of 32-inch-thick, impenetrable steel walls? The kids are still responsible for what they did, and not only then should such kids be charged with the murders, but also with the theft of the guns. I mean, you wouldn't honestly blame a police officer if someone got his gun from him, i.e., stole it, and then killed someone, would you?Once again, you are just making another argument to shift blame from the real problem”people who kill other people”to something/someone else.And once the number of guns in circulation is extremely low, and the new most popular weapons are paring knives, will you seek to put restrictions on those as well? Indeed, there will always be a weapon of some sort at the top of the list, and targeting that weapon will only get it replaced with another. As I've said before, do you not think it is about time you address the real problem? And I know, if any cliché were to sum up the general argument here it is thus: guns don't kill people; people kill people. God, I hated that I actually had to repeat it.Jon

Show me this as a valid flow of logic, and I'll accept your point. Otherwise, all you are doing is substituting fallacious reasoning for good logic. You're missing the point, in technical terms . You want the restrictions, how about you tell us where you want that line to be drawn, and we can debate from there.Jon

In the last thread, I asked for a repeat of the position. I think nator gave us all one, but you did not, and kuresu”in essence”told me to go piss off for not wanting to search through 11 pages of posts to find the needle in the hay stack.So, if you would be so kind, what is your position? How will you control gun violence, keeping in mind that most gun owners don't kill; that most people who do kill are unlikely”as Phat as pointed out”to obey gun laws to begin with; and that we Americans have a freedom in the Constitution to bear our arms. So, please, for the eighth time... JonEdited by Jon, : S p a c e s

Show me. Show me where I made the point that everyone in the world should have nukes? Remember, Modulous wrote: "Right and nukes don't kill people, people kill people. so everyone should have nukes." Did I write that anywhere? Oh? Did I?

quote:

---

Jon in Message 98

​

I am as much for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, as I am for restricting people from driving near lakes who have a habit of crashing their cars into them

---

And then, I also said... "I am for restricting people from driving near lakes who have a habit of crashing their cars into them " People who have problems doing dangerous things should not be put in a position”e.g., by giving them a weapon, car, etc.”in which they frequently do dangerous things. I mean, after so many traffic tickets, you lose your licence. If you can show me that nukes have recreational use as much as guns do, and that they are good to protect individual A from the attacking individual B without also killing off innocent bystanders C,D,E, and the 10,000 F's, then you can continue to set the two equal. Until then, you are simply 'arguing an accident,' in technical terms .Jon

Back this up. Also, Phat is talking about people who intentionally kill others with guns. You need the stats that should that 30,000 people intentionally kill with a gun. Your number, 30,000, is of the total who die from guns”remember, Cho was one bad apple, but killed 32 people. My guess, is that there are many fewer bad apples than 30,000. No one on this thread is advocating that we do such.Jon

No, what I'm saying is that if you fixed all of those things, guns would no longer be an issue. It's a long list, granted, but going after guns doesn't fix these problems, and going after these problems does fix the gun problem. So, where do you think society's focus should really lie? Don't let laziness and ignorance lead you to the simplest solution.Are you ready to tell us how you would fix these problems? Because fixing these problems would:i. reduce gun violence significantly, the primary”at least outwardly”goal of anti-gunners.
ii. allow people to own guns for recreational/protection purposes in accordance to the second amendment of the Constitution, the primary goal of pro-gunners.Wouldn't it be better for us to fix these problems instead of arguing over such superficial crap as gun control?Jon