Gun Accidents

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

What would you know about growing up in a world like ours where kids live w/o beeing teached how to use weapons? Nothing.

"Our" kids know that. They do not need to be well trained on any weapons to live their life. My big boy (22 yrs) is preparing himself for a (every) Friday night's party, leaving the house sometimes at 23.30. Coming back somewhat next afternoon. Or 2 days later from his girlfriend. Without any (hand) gun.

Sure, different culture too.

Tell you what, next time someone tries to rob me at an ATM, I'll just speak in German to them...I'm sure they'll leave me alone. It didn't work in English Friday night, though...that guy really wanted my money for some reason.

Oh, and what would you know about growing up in a culture like mine? When was the last time you took your kids hunting? I went hunting as a child. When was the last time you went to someone's house and they had a gun case in the living room? Pretty common in these parts...

So YMMV, I'm referencing in the US.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Well, I view guns as a device whose primary purpose for the average owner in the US is as a life saving device.

You may view it that way, but a guns primary purpose is to propel an object for the purpose of killing. Guns weren't invented for target practice, they were invented to make killing easier.

Quote

And tell me how comparing a device used for transportation is any more valid?

It's not.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm surprised you pat yourself on the back about 700 unnecessary deaths.

I'm surprised you are so pessimistic about a 54% decline in 10 years.

If we reduced skydiving accidents by 54% over 10 years, would you reply grumpily; "That doesn't help the 17 people who still died in skydiving accidents last year!"

[AggieDave 6]

Huh...

There's a lot of high-end weapons made now days that are designed for one thing...shooting holes in paper. Beyond that they're pretty worthless to defend with or hunt with.

And you know...I can't think of the last time I've killed with a weapon, it has to be the last time I went hunting as a kid. Many tens of thousands of rounds have been lobbed downrange putting holes in paper by me since then. Its fun. You should try it, its harder then you think to put all of your shots in the 10 ring.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

There's a lot of high-end weapons made now days that are designed for one thing...shooting holes in paper. Beyond that they're pretty worthless to defend with or hunt with.

And you know...I can't think of the last time I've killed with a weapon, it has to be the last time I went hunting as a kid. Many tens of thousands of rounds have been lobbed downrange putting holes in paper by me since then. Its fun. You should try it, its harder then you think to put all of your shots in the 10 ring.

I am sure it is fun, would try it if I ever get the opportunity.

Doesn't take away what the primary purpose of a gun is. The fact that guns have since expanded and have become specialized doesn't take away the primary function.

I am rpetty sure that target practice did not come about as a sport on its own. I am pretty sure it came about as a way to train to be a more efficient killer.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I am rpetty sure that target practice did not come about as a sport on its own. I am pretty sure it came about as a way to train to be a more efficient killer.

Yeah, sure. Same with the stick, the spear and the bow and arrow.

The difference is over here in the US its a basic right to own weapons, accidents happen, people loose eyes when they don't handle a stick right ya know...

All we can do is educate and hope parents do their jobs.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't think that the reduction in deaths would be that statistically significant by comparison to the reduction in ownership you would need to achieve it.

Let's see, there are 90 million gun owners, and 700 accidental deaths. So that's one fatality for every 128,000 gun owners. You would have to take guns away from a 128,000 people, to theoretically save one life.

There are 175 million drivers in America, and 41,000 annual accident fatalities. That's one dead driver out of every 4,270! Now that is a statistic that should frighten you.

Shall we deprive over 4,000 people of their driver's licenses, in order to try and save one life?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Doesn't take away what the primary purpose of a gun is.

Which is to fire a projectile. Your point?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If you never handle either a gun or a parachute, then you are correct. If you handle both, a gun is more likely to kill you than a parachute...

Only one out of every 128,000 gun owners dies from accidental gunshot wounds each year.

About one out of every 1,000 experienced skydivers die each year from a parachuting accident.

Thus, a gun owner is about 128 times more safe than a skydiver.

Quote

Guns are dangerous, and they require competence and respect to be able to use them safely.

Yep, just like skydiving gear. It's not the equipment that is dangerous, but how you use it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I like the comparison of an object with the primary purpose to kill to an object with the primary object of saving a life...

Guns weren't invented for target practice, they were invented to make killing easier.

We've debunked that "to kill" theory of yours numerous times in this forum. Same thing with the "invention" argument. You really need to get beyond those in order to participate in a valid discussion.

The primary purpose of cars is transportation, yet they kill 41,000 people per year. Does that make those deaths less significant?

The "purpose" is irrelevant in this discussion. We're just talking about the rates of death, regardless of purpose.

The original invention intent is also irrelevant, it's how they're used now that counts, and that is primarily for sporting purposes, and lawful self defense. Do you object to target shooting or lawful self defense?

[christelsabine 1]

So YMMV, I'm referencing in the US.
____________________________________________________

Yup.
And me for Germany,

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Doesn't take away what the primary purpose of a gun is.

Which is to fire a projectile. Your point?

He's really hung-up on that original intent idea, and can't get his mind beyond it.

Using that same philosophy, we could say that all nuclear power plants should be shut down, because the original invention of nuclear reactions was for purposes of bombs made to kill.

And computers should be illegal, since the original computer was invented by the Army for the purpose of computing ballistic trajectories, for efficient killing.

Oh, and one of Ben Franklin's sellling points for electricity was to use it for clean executions of death row prisoners.

It's a pretty silly line of reasoning, if you ask me.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

He's really hung-up on that original intent idea, and can't get his mind beyond it.

Using that same philosophy, we could say that all nuclear power plants should be shut down, because the original invention of nuclear reactions was for purposes of bombs made to kill.

And computers should be illegal, since the original computer was invented by the Army for the purpose of computing ballistic trajectories, for efficient killing.

Oh, and one of Ben Franklin's sellling points for electricity was to use it for clean executions of death row prisoners.

It's a pretty silly line of reasoning, if you ask me.

Where in this thread did I say they should be illegal?

Are your assumption getting the better of your arguing skills, or is it problem more on the comprehensive reading side?

I remarked the irony of comparing an object designed to kill with an object designed to save a life.

I suggest taking off the "everybody-is against-my-guns-glasses" from time to time......

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The original invention intent is also irrelevant, it's how they're used now that counts, and that is primarily for sporting purposes, and lawful self defense. Do you object to target shooting or lawful self defense?

I don't object to any of it, doesn't affect me. I have stated many times before I could care less what you guys do with guns in the US.

Quote

The primary purpose of cars is transportation, yet they kill 41,000 people per year. Does that make those deaths less significant?

Another logical conclusion

Quote

We've debunked that "to kill" theory of yours numerous times in this forum. Same thing with the "invention" argument. You really need to get beyond those in order to participate in a valid discussion.

Really, then what were guns invented for?

[craddock 0]

Quote

You may view it that way, but a guns primary purpose is to propel an object for the purpose of killing.

There are many, many guns built and purchased soley for target shooting. Some of them quite expensive.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Really, then what were guns invented for?

To save the lives of those using them.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

To save the lives of those using them.

by killing the assailant.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

To save the lives of those using them.

by killing the assailant.

By stopping the assailant from killing you. You asked what's the purpose, THAT is the purpose. The death of the assailant is a side effect, not the intended purpose.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

By stopping the assailant from killing you. You asked what's the purpose, THAT is the purpose. The death of the assailant is a side effect, not the intended purpose.

ahh yes, just like a parachute stops you from hitting the ground, the fact that it saves your life is just a side effect.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

By stopping the assailant from killing you. You asked what's the purpose, THAT is the purpose. The death of the assailant is a side effect, not the intended purpose.

ahh yes, just like a parachute stops you from hitting the ground, the fact that it saves your life is just a side effect.

Exactly. Do you go skydiving with the intention of defying death on every jump? Or with the intention of enjoying freefall and a canopy ride? If the intended use of parachutes in sport skydiving was to save lives, there's a much easier solution, don't jump. That's not their primary intended purpose.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Doesn't take away what the primary purpose of a gun is.

Which is to fire a projectile. Your point?

He's really hung-up on that original intent idea, and can't get his mind beyond it.

Using that same philosophy, we could say that all nuclear power plants should be shut down, because the original invention of nuclear reactions was for purposes of bombs made to kill.

Wrong. Nuclear reactions weren't invented, they were discovered, and the first use was for basic science research.

Quote

And computers should be illegal, since the original computer was invented by the Army for the purpose of computing ballistic trajectories, for efficient killing.

Wrong again.

Quote

Oh, and one of Ben Franklin's sellling points for electricity was to use it for clean executions of death row prisoners.

Maybe, but he didn't invent electricity nor was he the first to use it.

Quote

It's a pretty silly line of reasoning, if you ask me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To save the lives of those using them.

by killing the assailant.

By stopping the assailant from killing you. You asked what's the purpose, THAT is the purpose. The death of the assailant is a side effect, not the intended purpose.

The gun was invented in the 13th Century for military purposes: killing the enemy and breaking down his fortifications.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The gun was invented in the 13th Century for military purposes:

And what is the purpose of battle in warfare? Is it not to obtain objectives and survive longer than your opponent? I'm sure the vast majority of military commanders would be perfectly happy with a bloodless victory. But the enemy is trying to kill them. The gun helps them to survive.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Where in this thread did I say they should be illegal?

I'm having trouble following your logic... Let me see if I've got this straight:

1) You think that the only purpose of guns is to kill.
2) Yet you don't want to make them illegal.

Well, you're quite the humanitarian to take such a firm stand against these murder machines!

Oh, by the way, you ignored my question:

Do you believe in the right to use deadly force in lawful self defense?

Try and answer that one for us this time. I realize that may be tough, in order to remain consistent with your gun philosophy. But unless you do, your ideas are all contradicting each other, which doesn't do much for the credibility of those ideas.

Oh, and one more thing: quit using that cop-out about you being a Canadian and not caring what happens in the U.S. Tell us what you would like to see done with guns in *your* country. I'm looking for your true feelings here. Using that cop-out excuse doesn't reveal your true feelings.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and one of Ben Franklin's sellling points for electricity was to use it for clean executions of death row prisoners.

Maybe, but he didn't invent electricity nor was he the first to use it.

Why are you arguing against something that I didn't even say? I didn't claim that he invented it, nor that he was the first to use it. (I hope you use better logic than this when grading student papers.)