Aurora Colorado Violence

I guess the word "terrorism" is has been thoroughly bastardized and is now completely meaningless if every act of violence is considered as such. The masses only give a shit when a bunch of white people are murdered. Gun shots ring out daily in the ghetto, is THAT terrorism? Does that pull on the heart strings of ANYONE? Of course they will if every act of violence is labeled terrorism and we have a "war on terror" and every news outlet feeds the masses that the only way to fight this "war" is to give up freedoms. Faith and imaginary friends had as much to do with this as did Osama Bin Laden. The kid was mentally ill and his sickness was ignored and untreated. Plain and simple.{abe} LinkyEdited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

What definition of "dangerous" are you using that you use it in such a blanket, general way? Sure, a desert eagle will cause more harm round for round than a .22 rifle, but that same .22 rifle with hollow points will fuck your shit up way more than a Desert Eagle with standard rounds. So to say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" outright simply due to how many people are killed by them is dishonest at best. I think you also should take into consideration the range of a weapon. What is the effective range of a Glock vs an AR15, M16 or M4 (or any other rifle)? If your definition of "dangerous" is sheer volume of murders by a weapon, then you must also consider how easy it is to carry/conceal a pistol vs. a rifle.I am in the middle on gun ownership as I haven't put much thought into it. I can't own one, so I really don't give a shit one way or another if you can or not. I was just trying to point out what I see as a flaw in your usage of the term "dangerous". Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

So handguns are more dangerous than rifles, but only if you don't factor on other countries or other time periods? But you haven't made that distinction, have you? You've simply repeated "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" with no qualifiers. Could you point to the sentence in that post where you defined your usage of dangerous to mean "danger=causing more statistical deaths"? I should like to use the dictionary definition: Nowhere in that definition does it come close to saying what you are. I'm simply saying that you are categorically wrong to just say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" without using any sort of qualifications. Like I said, not all handguns are created equal and not all rifles are created equal. A .50 caliber sniper rifle is a fuck of a lot more "dangerous" than a Walther PPK Conversely, a Desert Eagle is far more "dangerous" than a .22 caliber rifle (you choose the make and model, I'm no gun nut). There are more factors to take into consideration than "handgun or rifle" when saying how dangerous they are.By your logic, black people from Compton are more dangerous than white people from the Hamptons. Is it statistically accurate? Yes, if you count how many black people from Compton murder people compared to how many white people from The Hamptons murder people. Even though the topic is pertaining to a movie theater, you haven't been saying "in a movie theater, handguns are more dangerous than rifles", have you? No, you are flat out saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" with your own definition of "dangerous". A definition which, taken a step further, could be used to say that handguns are more dangerous than Sherman Tanks or RPG's or landmines.

No, you've just repeatedly used it as such and I am calling you out on it. I asked you to point out where in message 64 you indicated your usage because I read it and found nothing. Please rectify this misunderstanding. I'm sending you to Afghanistan. You get to choose between a "rifle" and a "handgun". You're telling me you will choose a handgun? Because most people judge danger by the potential to harm. And if you don't understand how a higher caliber round is more dangerous than a smaller one, you shouldn't even be in this conversation. But keep saying that handguns are more dangerous than landmines. Hell, handguns are more dangerous than TNT or C4. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

So is a .22 pistol more dangerous (all other things equal) than a Barrett M82A1? Because, like crash says, handguns are more dangerous than rifles.

I did read that post and you did not make yourself clear. If you want to be misinterpreted, then sure, it's not your problem. So every handgun is more "reliable, versatile, and accurate" than every rifle? Not explicitly. But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous. I extrapolated your usage of the word dangerous, I used your definition of it, to say "handguns are more dangerous than landmines" because more people are killed in the US by handguns than landmines.

PRECISELY the point I am making. The only point, actually. It is dishonest and inaccurate to blatantly say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles". However, crash has continued this mantra with no qualifiers, hence my hyperbole about landmines and RPG's and shit.

Ask Crash, not me. Think about this though: by blanketly saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles", don't you think that leaves it open to interpretation? In a discussion about gun laws, you are saying handguns are the most dangerous. Given how laws get written up (and who writes and enacts them), it seems to me that such a statement advocates a handgun ban in comparison to rifles. "Rifles are ok, but handguns are bad", "RPG's are ok, but handguns are bad", C4 is ok, but handguns are bad".Me thinks you ought be more descriptive, no? This, IMO, is how shitty laws get passed, when even an advocate makes a sweeping statement such as this.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I thought it was message 64? Are you now admitting that you didn't define your usage until I called you on it?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

That isn't the point I am making. I am being hyperbolic on purpose. Crash didn't define his usage until I called him on it, and even then he said he had already done so. Then any and all debate on this site about how people misuse words should be stricken from the record if we all get to use our own definition of words, right? How many threads have been curtailed because a creationist is using a non-standard definition of a word?Think: stellar evolution vs. biological evolution.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Genuinely curious and not trying to argue: isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution?