Summations Only

Even if they go out for other purposes like socializing they are making that mistake because not socializing isn't going to kill them.Going out to supper presents a risk of death greater than zero; not going out to supper (forgoing everything that goes with that, including the food) presents a risk of death not greater than zero. And some of those people who buy guns involved in accidental shooting buy those guns for more reasons than just protection.If there have been any artificial limitations in the analogies, it's because they were introduced in the original argument about buying guns for protection. If you want to address the other probabilities in, then you'll have to look at all the other benefits people give up by not buying a gun, like the feeling of safety, the love of something shiny, etc.which they give up with 100% certainty if they do not buy a gun.But this makes everything a total fucking mess; and since policies usually aren't directed at nonsense like improving satisfaction from owning shiny things or socializing but instead at meaningful stuff like keeping people safe, it just makes sense to ignore these other 'benefits' as everyone else, besides you, has been doing.

quote:

---

Even if they go out for other purposes like socializing they are making that mistake because not socializing isn't going to kill them

---

Since they will more likely fulfil those purposes by going out than staying in they are NOT making that mistake. An action that has the opposite of the desired effect is very different from one that happens to carry a very small risk of death. The nurses and doctors who went out to treat Ebola patients in Africa took a larger risk, but their action is not a mistake because of that.

quote:

---

And some of those people who buy guns involved in accidental shooting buy those guns for more reasons than just protection

---

So? It doesn't change the fact that those who do buy guns for protection are doing the wrong thing.

quote:

---

If there have been any artificial limitations in the analogies, it's because they were introduced in the original argument about buying guns for protection. If you want to address the other probabilities in, then you'll have to look at all the other benefits people give up by not buying a gun, like the feeling of safety, the love of something shiny, etc.which they give up with 100% certainty if they do not buy a gun.

---

Really this level of dishonesty isn't helping your case. Even if the restriction was artificial (and it arguably is not) you didn't point that out. You just went ahead and added your own silly restrictions. If you post stupid bullshit that is your fault. Not anybody else's.But in reality those points can be addressed. The feeling of safety is false. There are other shiny things. Maybe, for some people, the other things do justify buying a gun. But knowing that would require a real cost-benefit analysis.

quote:

---

But this makes everything a total fucking mess; and since policies usually aren't directed at nonsense like improving satisfaction from owning shiny things or socializing but instead at meaningful stuff like keeping people safe, it just makes sense to ignore these other 'benefits' as everyone else, besides you, has been doing.

---

Funny how you suddenly switch from individual decisions to government policies. And funny how you consider freedom to lack meaning. Or recognise that, far from simplifying things this move complicates them more.

And those who go out to supper on Saturday night for the reason of nourishing themselves are doing the wrong thing as well. I added an analogy equally restrictive. That's the idea of an analogy: to be somewhat equal. Huh?What government policies?

quote:

---

And those who go out to supper on Saturday night for the reason of nourishing themselves are doing the wrong thing as well

---

But who goes out for supper - in a car - just to survive?

quote:

---

I added an analogy equally restrictive. That's the idea of an analogy: to be somewhat equal.

---

If you had been trying for equality you wouldn't have created a silly straw an that obscured the main point.

quote:

---

What government policies?

---

If you meant some other policies it's up to you to explain it.

So, the Charleston church shooter has been identified as one Dylann Roof. One of the three survivors quotes him as saying this: In retrospect, his dad will probably regret buying him a gun for his birthday.

That's just stupid. OF COURSE people need to know the risk in EVERYTHING they use.

Of course it is, but the best way to improve gun safety is to learn the rule you teach your children: "If you see a gun, don't touch it."

Who buys a gun just for protection?My guess is that folks who buy and own guns hope that they never find themselves in a situation where they have to use them to protect themselves. I did explain it; when I used the word 'policies' and not 'government policies'.

And have such regret suggest that owning a gun might conceivably be a contributory factor in the deaths ? Heaven forefend !My guess is that he'll be drilled to say that he regrets not realising that his son is a murderous, racist lunatic. The ownership of the gun, naturally, being an utterly irrelevant factor....

We also tell children not to talk to strangers.But if adults followed that rule, we'd never be able to get on with our lives.And that's because adults aren't children and shouldn't be expected to behave as though they are.

When it comes to guns, "adults" in the US are exactly like children in a candy store.

I don't think the gun-lovers are the ones leaving loaded pistols in their purses.Those people are generally not the gun-lovers; they're just people who own guns.They are the ones who will be persuaded to buy safer guns because they actually want to be safer and not simply own a gun.

Are they buying the safe ones now? Or are they buying the cheap ones and the shiny ones?

Yet after over three thousand posts, in this thread alone, no one has been able to support such nonsense or even explain what it means.Oddly, from my own quick count, I see that most of the folks in this thread in support of gun-ownership rights don't themselves own gunsthey aren't the kids in a candy store drooling over firearms you like to pretend they are.You're spouting ad hominem nonsense to avoid addressing the real issue.

What safe ones?Pull the trigger and today's guns will fire, whether they're pointed at a toddler and regardless of who's pulling the trigger.