Guns

I honestly don't know what you question was. You just kept saying "yes or no" "yes or no" What does this have to do with anything? No one is talking about suicides here. On a very technical level, no it simply can't. I defy you to shoot anyone with a knife.On a more "Oh you think this" level, you keep harping on this idea that if someone has a knife they can just kill anyone they want, as fast as they want, without making a noise, a mess, or getting tired. This is simply ridiculous.If Cho went on a "stabby spree" he MIGHT have successfully killed 1 person. More likely than not, he'd have simply wounded a couple. Instead, this pint sized maniac was able to point and shoot, and you see the results.

Then, by this thinking, it's safe to assume that you are pro-gatling gun. Since it's illegal to kill one person, and illegal to kill many people, why not just equip everyone with the most lethal weapons availble and hope they stick to the honor system.

You want me to make up numbers? Okay 52. There happy.Now, if you'd bothered to read the entire thread you would notice that Nator has provided some very specific numbers and dates.As for this: I guess the 24 hour time out wasn't long enough.

Here we go again with Switzerland.No one on this thread is suggesting that members of the military be denied access to weapons in order to do their job.The citizens of Switzerland are obliged to serve their military. They are provided with military weapons and ammunition which remains locked and stored. The weapons and ammunition are routinely inspected to make sure this is true.There is a world of difference between a National Guardsman being issued a side arm, and a drunk hillbilly with a .357 in his waistband because he feels inadequate about his manhood.

For someone who came down on me for "not having numbers" this is a hell of a claim. It strikes me like something I would have heard in the early 90s in which a term like "sexual assault" is expanded to include oogling.You want us to believe that there is a 99% chance that the average American woman is going to be raped, you better bring some evidence.Also, please additionally prove that these rapes would have been disuaded by the presence of a hand gun in the house, since that's what we are discussing.

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.

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.

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."

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

Me: Jon: You want me to prove that you don't buy a machine gun to plant flowers. Very well.Planting flowers typically necessitates digging a hole in the ground. It also requires placing the plant in said hole without doing it undo damage. Further it requires watering the plant.A fully automatic assault rifle with armor piercing bullets would do a spectacularly bad job at 1) digging a hole, 2) gently placing the plant in the hole and 3) watering the plant.Therefore, you would not buy that gun for the purpose of planting flowers.I really can't believe that you need this sort of stuff explained to you.Additionally, I'd like to point out that we are in the coffee house, and if you want to go down the "rule lawyer" road, I'll happily review ever single one of your 600+ posts in order to make you explain in excrutiating detail what you mean by even the simplest of comments.

Careful when you use words like "any". Jon will ride you for 20+ posts for it.By the way, hasn't anyone ever heard expressions like, "There's no reason to go to NYC if you arent going to visit the statue of liberty."I suspect that will be Jon's next cruisade

THIS is exactly the problem.Because you have a gun in this scenario, you ramp up your agression to unwarrented levels.It is unreasonable for you to execute someone for so slight an offense.Prove that your use of lethal force is valid in all circumstances or...

This is a hopeless question. Basically the further you are away from the ocean, the more likely you are to embrace this form of fascist regime.Even though both coasts recognize that the current Government is out of control, the vast middle of the country is unable to formulate such thoughts for themselves.These are the people who STILL agree that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that the corner grocier should absolutely stop selling "yellow cake"