Guns

Okay Bren for 3 posts in a row now, I have had no idea what you are refering to.This is a very long thread with a lot of topics. If you want to jump in and snipe, that's fine, but can you at least cut and paste some quotes in so we know what you are talking about?Apparently, from this last fragment of a post, you are disagreeing that there is a difference between a drunk hillbilly and a member of the National Guard. Care to elaborate?

Hate to have to repeat myself but it's really not. It's in fact, 1 in 6. Here's a hint, it says "one in six" that's how I can tell. Once again, you are combining two stats to come out with a different conclusion.The statistic is NOT 1 in 6 women will be raped. The statistic is 1 in 6 women will be "sexually assaulted" which you yourself has defined to include "* Someone forcing you to look at sexually explicit material "You do NOT need a hand gun on the off chance that someone is going to show you a playboy.When you start to equate showing someone pornography with the very physical act of rape you undercut the seriousness of rape.You are saying that rape is on par with looking at dirty pictures. I disagree, I think rape is far more serious than looking at dirty pictures.But, if it's your belief that "almost every woman" in the world lives in fear of seeing dirty pictures - you go right ahead and keep on believing that.

Once again, the issue is that we have, readily available, guns which are capable of doling out WAY more firepower than is justified. Certainly more firepower than the founding fathers could have anticipated.You can't stop one person from attacking another person. You can stop one person from attacking 50 other people by taking away his means to do so.

I don't know if this is still true, but back in the day, when you filed to a permit to carry a handgun in Conn. there was a question on the form to the effect of "Do you intend to use this weapon to commit a crime" with a yes/no box.I always felt that they weren't looking for the person the checked yes, but we instead looking for the person who checked yes, then erased it and checked no.

Holy crap are you ever paranoid!You think it's my fault that there are unreported accidental gun deaths. Wow!Here's a news flash - I'm at a computer typing, not out causing accidents. I'm super, not supernatural

Please just go away. You aren't helping yourself, nor are you participating in this debate.You just completely made up a bunch of statements and attributed them to me. Thanks, but no thanks.No where did I say that "ALL" Americans with guns are hillbillies.
No where did I say that "ALL" people with guns are homocidal maniacs.
No where did I say that "ALL" people opposed to gun control are gun collectors (in fact, I believe that's Jon's point)
No where did I say that in OneWing's account of "this thing that happened at a party once" the "ONLY" recourse was that the drunken yahoo shoot the guy. Frankly, I think you need to take your own advice, and perhaps another time out.

Thanks Nat, I've been so busy replying to three different people, I haven't had time to go digging.

PLease demonstrate that we claim that ALL us mayhem is caused by guns. Please demonstrate that they are ALL lazy/ignorant. You may use alphabetical order for everyone who is anti-gun. Or if you like, you can list them in chronological order from the beginning of time.I expect you to hold yourself to your own unreasonable expectations.As for the rest of your racism rant, this issue, once again, and this has to be like the 12th time we've said it, is what KIND of guns are available and why.Are there oppressed people? Yes. Are there people with criminally sick minds? yes. Are their people who want to have a hand gun because they VERY WRONGLY believe it will make them safer? Yes.Do these people need a fully automatic assault rifle? No.You keep trying to frame the debate in completely black and white terms - either you are for guns or you are against anyone having guns. This is a total fallacy and no one on this thread has come close to stating that.The ball is STILL in your court to explain why you think it's reasonable for a person to have a fully automatic assault rifle and a crate of armor piercing bullets.

People keep bringing this up as though they were making some sort of valid conclusion, when in fact it's quite simply ridiculous.Currently hand guns are readily available to just about everyone in the US. Therefore, a criminal intent on getting his hands on a hand gun has a very easy time in doing so.Currently hand grenades are NOT readily available to just about anyone in the US. As a result, there are very few hand grenade related crimes in the US.The idea that criminals will still have access to weapons like they do today is simply incorrect. If you make guns harder to get, it will be harder to get guns. And more likely than not, you and Joe Gangbanger will never meet. The chances are far greater than one or both of you will be killed by your own handgun rather than kill one another. You, like Jon, are clearly finding your position a losing one. As a result, you are trying to assign a different position to us and then defeat that strawman.No one is saying that "guns caused Cho to kill", what we are saying, and this goes back to the very first post, is that the increased lethality of weapons available means that when someone like Cho decides to enact carnage (sane or insane) the outcome is far bloodier.If Cho only had a shotgun, he would not have so easily concealed it when travelling from building to building. He would not have been able to fire off so many rounds in rapid succession. he would have been forced to take more time to reload, etc etc etc. Wow, this isn't just a strawman, it's the goddamn Scarecrow. You are now suggesting that you've "turned it around" on the "anti-gun" crowd by suggesting that Cho should have been institutionalized. Congratulations! You've won an argument that no one is having.No one here, or anywhere that I can find, is suggesting that Cho was perfectly fine and should have been free to go about his business. I have to assume that this is a typo and that you meant that they are "not" manufactured for killing. But, then I fail to understand your next sentence.Guns are not protection from getting shot. Kevlar is protection from getting shot. Gun are made to shoot. That's precisely what they were designed to do. In lots of places it is legal to carry firearms and illegal to carry swords. How does that make sense? Wait are you still talking about guns, or are you talking about Biblical Creationism? Because this sounds like an argument for why Creationists shouldn't have to study science.

More creationist type argument. "I don't have facts that support me, you have facts that support you, therefore I disbelieve your data without presenting any of my own." This is an improper question. It has nothing to do with the debate.A better question would gauge the prevelance of handguns in AA hands vs EA hands. Or better yet, whether the types of guns were single shot, semi-auto, or fully auto.Further, you could look at crimes in which guns are used versus ones in which there are no guns around and compair murder rates. Are gun murders more likely among AA than non-gun murders? Are gun murders more likely among EA than non-gun murders?

If you are going to attack me in your posts, please at least do it with sentences that make more sense than this. Otherwise, I will be forced to respond in kind."Nemesis_juggernaut believe in Must See TV and the that they support!"

Finally someone is making sense! You're absolutely right, NJ! I was the ultraviolent movies that Hollywood put out during the 1800's that led to all the gun violence in the wild wild west, not the prevelance of hand guns and lax law enforcement.Damn those hollywood types for their pre-existance actions!

None of those things are designed specifically for killing lots and lots of people. Hasn't come to who's aid? Hand gun owners? that's what we are discussing. Owning a hand gun makes you more likely to die from hand gun violence (particularly your own hand gun) than not owning a hand gun.Color of skin, socio-economic conditions, ineffectual police force - none of these are factors in that overall statistic.You could say, and may be right, that the urban poor are even more likely to die from handgun violence than the rural poor or the suburban rich. But that doesn't change the fact that owning the handgun makes you more likely to be a victim of violence across the board.

Well if your definition of debating honestly is to attribute your opponent with false statements then you are right. I'm not doing what you do. I don't find it helpful.

Nator has already posted a number of statistics about gun deaths. What specifically is your problem with his posts that you feel I need to add to them.Additionally, why exactly are you asking for "accidental death" numbers anyway? Can you at least reference the point in the earlier post you are debating?Or are you refrencing back to the other thread?You need to be clearer, otherwise your demands are just white noise.