Guns

Page not found | RAINNRead the part about the rapes, and unreported rapes to cancel out your idea that sexual assault is some kind of myth. While you're at it, maybe you can give us an idea of the kind of safe haven you grew up in, so we all know where to live when we retire? No where I've been to, except for maybe this college town that I've resided in the past few months in the interest of higher education, would allow someone with your naive perspectives to survive.EDITED IN:Oh, and just to be fair, I'll be more than happy to give a rundown of the places I've lived in, albiet most of which are in the same general are. I'll probably be able to get some figures from there, along with a few of my own anecdotes. Buddy, you said so yourself that a hangun is dangerous in anybody's hands. If a woman keeps a handgun in her purse, she can use it as a weapon much more easily than mace or a knife. You can stop mace with your palm, and even a knife if you're desperate enough.Also, I'm quite aware that the gun could be turned on the victim. This is true of any weapon. That's why I feel we should, as a society, make a point to train the first weapon. But that won't happen because people also think that such a program would provoke more violence. Thus, we might as well give the weak a gun as to have some way of protecting themselves.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : Had to keep things fair.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

What are you? 12? You have yet to address the fact that your theory is completely founded in your own paranoia, but you are all over my ass because I missed 1 line of 1 of your posts 3 days ago. Grow up. Now I see why I didn't answer your question. It's poorly worded. What do you mean "cause"?Do I believe that the presence of a pistol in a room will cause an otherwise passive Buddist Monk to suddenly grab it up and blow away his fellow monks? No.Do I believe that the presence of a loaded pistol in the hand of a 5 year old will likely go off with horrible results? Yes.Do I believe that a hand gun in the hands of a drunk abusive husband will land his frequently victimized wife in the morgue? Yes. Cho didn't have to go through the black market. He simply walked into a store and plopped down some cash.Could Cho, a meek and anti-social kid, have found a gun on the black market? Maybe. Or maybe he would have tried to buy that black market gun from an undercover cop. Or maybe the gun he got off the black market would have been old and a piece of crap. Or maybe he would have got his hands on a rogue nuke. It's all speculation. If you wanna speculate that things would have been worse if Cho DIDN'T have a gun. Feel free. Yeah, that's called "war". And while "war" is a subset of "times people use guns" it's not exactly what we are talking about, is it? This is your "32 accidental shootings" arguement but in reverse. "Surely in the entirety of human history there have been more people killed with rocks than Cortez killed with his musket." Who's being dishonest? I don't claim that you made up that people break into homes. I STATE that you can not substantiate your claims that criminals are detered by the potential presence of a hand gun.You THINK they are. You WANT them to be. But you don't have any evidence that the presence of a hand gun in a home actually deters crime, because, as you yourself just said - you can't prove a negative. Shame on me? Give me a goddamn break.First of all, I feel absolutely no sympathy for you imaginary friend.Second of all, exactly how quick is your imaginary old man? Did he have his imaginary pistol in his lap when the big bad criminal came a huffing and a puffing at his door? Or was his imaginary pistol locked up in his imaginary closet.Third, how did the imaginary big bad criminal know that the imaginary old man didn't own an imaginary gun. Remember, your entire arguement henges on the fact that the criminals have to know the contents of the house prior to their breaking into it. I did not say "A hand gun can only be used to kill a human", what I said was "There is no reason to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it."Perhaps I should have said, "There is no reason for a mature rational adult, comfortable in their own sexuality and their personal endowment, to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it."You COULD own a hand gun to be used to pick your nose, but that's not a reason a mature rational adult would give for owning one.As for killing varmits, that's what a shotgun is for. Either you are just trying to be funny, or you are seriously mentally ill. You honestly can't imagine a reason why we wouldn't want borderline retarded liquoured up red necks to have access to heavy duty machine guns? No one is saying they don't. What I am saying is that a homeowner doesn't need an UZI to defend his house. He doesn't need a gatling gun to defend his house. He doesn't need a Glock to defend his house. He can have a dog. He can have ADT. He can have a samuari sword. He can have a shotgun. All of these things are fine.There is NO REASON for a person to own a fully automatic assualt rifle with armor piercing bullets OTHER THAN to go on a god damn killing spree.

This is such a stupid statement. People don't carry around guns because they feel inadequate about their manhood. Besides, I thought you were all talking about women defending themselves, no? I really fail to see the connection between a woman and manhood...Also, not everyone who owns guns is a drunken hillbilly. Equating gun ownership with stupidity is, as I'm sure you know, fallacious.Jon

Now you have backed yourself into a corner. Unless you can prove that everyone who owns automatic assault rifles with armour-piercing rounds own them because they plan to go on a killing spree, you will have to retract that statement.Prove or retract... the EvC Golden Rule. Jon

Your link claims 1 in 6 women are victims of "sexual assault". That's not "nearly every woman", it's in fact 1 in 6.Additionally, a little further in it defines "sexual assault" as "Sexual assault is unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling."While I find the idea of some bonehead foddling a lady on the subway distasteful, you must agree that that falls into a different category than rape. Of course, then again, I'm naive. Can you please explain to me how you feel that this website that you linked has mistakenly identified their own definitions of their own statistics? Wow, it took like 50 posts, but you are finally coming around. Yes, that is the point that we were making earlier. If Cho had a knife, his victims could have stopped him.Believe me, people who stand the risk of being stabbed to death are plenty "desperate enough."I'm glad you've finally seen the light on this issue.

Oh please. I would hazzard a guess that it's the #1 reason red necks buy pistols.Look at the needless length of the barrel. Look at the fact that the "girly" guns are the tiny little 1 or 2 shooters. But how much do you want to be that every drunken hillbilly owns a hand gun?Anyway, my point was not that only drunk killbillies have handguns, it's that there is "a world of difference" between the two categories.The previous post was not about women defending themselves, it was about the relatively low amount of gun crime in Switzerland, where the people have been issued guns as part of their military service.The yahoo who wants a BIG GUN to shoot off into the air on Cinco De Mayo is very different than the drafted Swiss man who is assigned a machine gun to keep in his attic weither he wants one or not.

Like Wing was sooooo eager to point out, you are asking me to prove a negative.I will instead point out this, which you can choose to disagree with,A fully automatic Assualt rifle with armor piercing bullets is a machine who's primary purpose is the killing of human beings. Though you could use it for other things (like a canoe paddle) there are other tools (like an actual canoe paddle) which are better suited for those tasks.Since this machine is made specifically for killing people, and more specifically for killing people who are wearing body armor, and even more specifically for killing a lot of people wearing body armor in rapid succession, one can conclude that the reason you would own such a machine is to carry out its primary purpose.However, having written all this, I will concede that a museum may have one on display for other reasons - though I would suggest that they instead get a replica.

A replica? Perhaps they should tear down the Colosseum and put up a replica in its place? Either way, that's a minor point. Sure, at first that might have been the reason for inventing the gun, but that doesn't mean someone now cannot get one for a totally different reason. Maybe they are a gun collector. I mean, what you are saying is similar to asserting that the only reason anyone would want to collect”own”a silver dollar would be to spend it. They get their dollar, and sometimes take it out to look at it... show it off, etc. Well, can they not also do the same with the gun? Does their only reason for getting it have to be to use it for its intended purpose? No, you asserted that the only reason to have one of those guns is to kill people. Now, you have to prove that. You said All Reasons are for killing, in other words, All R are K. Now, just because your statement is so ridiculously inclusive does not mean you can get away with making it and not having to prove it. Prove or retract.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : clarify

Jon, I said in my post that a museum could want one for it's collection. Let's not get into "how many people does it take to make a museum."

Can you address the actual post? Not to mention that this didn't even address the point about people wanting to collect guns. Are museums now the only place that can collect things? Once again, prove that the only reason anyone has ever owned such a gun is for killing, or RETRACT your statement.Jon

I guess it is going to be a "what's a museum" conversation. I would suggest that a person who is a collector and a museum which is a collector are both operating under the same purpose.However, that doesn't justify either of them needing a working fully automatic assault rifle and it certainly doesn't necessitate armor piercing bullets. ( The bullets are key)That combination of gun and ammo is specifically created for the purpose of killing lots and lots of people. That's what it does.Is it possible that there are people out there who own such a weapon who have not yet gone on a killing spree? Sure.Does that disprove my point about intent? Not at all. You don't buy a machine gun to plant flowers, you buy it to kill people.Edited by Nuggin, : screwed up my "quote" box and it erased my whole message

Do I see someone slowly shifting the point? Fallacy! It is not 'they have gone on a killing spree or not,' the issue is whether they purchase the gun for THAT purpose. If they buy it just so they can look at it, then they haven't bought it for the purpose you claim everyone buys it for. You claimed that here: Prove that statement, or RETRACT IT! I will refer you to Forum Rule #4 for further information on what this means. What kind of a collector wants to own a fake? Would you suggest coin collectors all own fake coins? Perhaps the foil ones with chocolate inside?You have two things to prove:1) that no one has ever owned such a gun without the intent of killing people
2) that there is any reason why a collector should be forced to own a fake, and especially in an institute of learning”such as a museum”they should try to teach people with fake examplesCan you do that? If not, retract the points.Jon

I would suggest instead of retracting the statement perhaps a small edit? Could it not be conceivable that along with owning an assualt rifle for the purpose of killing varmits, it could also be illegal to own an assualt rifle for the purpose of having a collection of assault rifles? Make them illegal for any purpose! Simple, elegant, and now folks don't feel compeled to own a killing machine to paddle their canoes. ABE:I just do not see the need for anyone, for any reason, to have such weaponry in their homes. If I decide I have a burning desire to begin collecting pipe bombs and grenades - its illegal regardless of the fact I just want to look at them. They are meant to kill people. Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

Personally, if someone started grabbing me in a sexual manner, and I had a gun, and the legal right to do so, I'd put a bullet between their eyes faster than they could blink.Jon

An old woman once grabbed hold of my arse and I had a stack of pint glasses in my hand. It was unwanted sexual fondling. Should I have smashed the glasses in her face?