The Seven Varieties of Gun-o-phobes

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I just sat through a weapons safety and training course.

There was one guy in there that , through his actions and statments, caused the instructor to call local LE.

They are going to pull his carry permit and have, for now, taken all the weapons he has (that they know of anyway) He was a bit scarry

So, "they" acted as plaintiff, prosecutor, judge and jury?
There must be more to the story.

There is

This guy was not normal!

The LEO's stated that this was temp until he was evaluated

All was clearly spelled out

I am not one for LE to just do what they want

I have never seen anyone act like this guy did

The instructor was armed and he was very nervous about this guy

I wish we had some film


And know that all that happened was they removed the weapons

The permit issue was going to a judge

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

A weapon that was used to kill 3 million people is very effective IMO. One swing and you are dead. Unless you have a different definition of effective.

Sure, lets put total people killed by bat, total people killed by machette and total people killed by firearms in one table and see which one has the bigger number. Lets use the last decade.

Another progunner who isn't able to face facts.

Another hysterical anti-gunner who believes inanimate object jump up and kill people.

I'm assuming you also want to ban automobiles. They are very effective weapons.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Might want check with the Tutsis about how effective a non-firearm weapon can be, what with half a million of them being massacred in the course of 3 months with machetes.

I said "more effective", not "not effective". You either can't read or your prolonged employment as a mercenary outside of the country is effecting your language skills.

Killing a half-million people in three months demonstrates a pretty good level of effectiveness, I would think - got something to beat that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Might want check with the Tutsis about how effective a non-firearm weapon can be, what with half a million of them being massacred in the course of 3 months with machetes.

I said "more effective", not "not effective". You either can't read or your prolonged employment as a mercenary outside of the country is effecting your language skills.

Killing a half-million people in three months demonstrates a pretty good level of effectiveness, I would think - got something to beat that?

Penis's are responsible for many deaths every year also. Perhaps we should register all penis's. That way if someone gets a disease like AIDS and dies, we can charge the nutter with a penis with murder.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Might want check with the Tutsis about how effective a non-firearm weapon can be, what with half a million of them being massacred in the course of 3 months with machetes.

I said "more effective", not "not effective". You either can't read or your prolonged employment as a mercenary outside of the country is effecting your language skills.

Killing a half-million people in three months demonstrates a pretty good level of effectiveness, I would think - got something to beat that?

Penis's are responsible for many deaths every year also. Perhaps we should register all penis's. That way if someone gets a disease like AIDS and dies, we can charge the nutter with a penis with murder.

All US penis owners are registered at or shortly after birth.

...

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

[Creep0321 0]

Quote

Quote

If the BATF required registration of everyone who purchased hobby rocket motors, would you be okay with that?

When hobby rocket motors are used in thousands of homicides each year, yes, I shall definitely be in favor of it. In fact, if they were involved in just 100 homicides a year I would.

Now try a different silly argument.

Knives are used in hundreds of murders per year, so your against making it illegal for bed bath and beyond to sell cutlery now?

Jack of all trades.
Military Free Fall Jumpmaster.
USA Static-line Jumpmaster.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Another hysterical anti-gunner who believes inanimate object jump up and kill people.

I'm assuming you also want to ban automobiles. They are very effective weapons.

Right. Saying that guns are more effective at killing people than bats is the same as wanting to ban guns. Incredible levels of logical thinking are being displayed here.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Killing a half-million people in three months demonstrates a pretty good level of effectiveness, I would think - got something to beat that?

Half a million people were killed by bats in three months? Where did this take place, or are you taking some liberties with actual facts?

[Creep0321 0]

Quote

Quote

Another hysterical anti-gunner who believes inanimate object jump up and kill people.

I'm assuming you also want to ban automobiles. They are very effective weapons.

Right. Saying that guns are more effective at killing people than bats is the same as wanting to ban guns. Incredible levels of logical thinking are being displayed here.

Both a bat, and a gun are inanimate objects, that require human input in order to cause death.

Figured I would break it down Barney style for ya.

Jack of all trades.
Military Free Fall Jumpmaster.
USA Static-line Jumpmaster.

[rushmc 23]

Both a bat, and a gun are inanimate objects, that require human input in order to cause death.

Figured I would break it down Barney style for ya.

The point finally, very clearly, spelled out for those who do not get it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Both a bat, and a gun are inanimate objects, that require human input in order to cause death.

Figured I would break it down Barney style for ya.

Right. Both are tools. The gun is the more effective tool at killing.

Agreeing to that statement is not the same as wanting to ban them.

Hope that is Barney style enough for you, cause I don't think I can dumb it down much more for the collective.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Penis's are responsible for many deaths every year also. Perhaps we should register all penis's. That way if someone gets a disease like AIDS and dies, we can charge the nutter with a penis with murder.

All US penis owners are registered at or shortly after birth.

Doesn't prevent rape though.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The point finally, very clearly, spelled out for those who do not get it

Here is a simple question for you:

Why is your army outfitted with firearms and not bats?

[rushmc 23]

Please

Return to Creep0321's post just above

Read it very carefully

Then come back

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Penis's are responsible for many deaths every year also. Perhaps we should register all penis's. That way if someone gets a disease like AIDS and dies, we can charge the nutter with a penis with murder.

All US penis owners are registered at or shortly after birth.

Doesn't prevent rape though.

...or pissing in public

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Creep0321 0]

Quote

Quote

The point finally, very clearly, spelled out for those who do not get it

Here is a simple question for you:

Why is your army outfitted with firearms and not bats?

You talk about effectiveness, with that argument wouldnt a bat be better, more effective for a criminal, legal to own, can carry on the street openly, use on a target (victim) of opportunity, where as a gun he risks more, simply by leaving the house with it?

Jack of all trades.
Military Free Fall Jumpmaster.
USA Static-line Jumpmaster.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Motor vehicles kill over 30,000 people each year in the United states with alchol involved in 1/3 of those.

Comparing apples to oranges. Just because currently more people are being killed by motor vehicles compared to firearms does not mean the motor vehicle is a more effective killing tool.

Americans own approximately 300,000,000 guns and 255,000,000 motor vehicles.

Fewer motor vehicles kill more people.

Ergo they are more deadly.

Q.E.D.

A rational person would see that and concede that they're under-regulated or firearms are over-regulated. I believe firearms are over-regulated.

Quote

Why is it that the pro-gun crowd cannot even admit that firearms are more effective killing tools than bats, knives, cars, ballpoints, paperclips etc.?

Why can't the anti-gun crowd admit that deaths from gun misuse guns are a much less significant problem than the fatalities resulting from other objects with much less regulation?

Quote

How your army is outfitted is a pretty decent indication of what is effective at killing and what is not.

Yup. Heavy weapons like artillery shells and tanks work well.

[billvon 2,998]

>Americans own approximately 300,000,000 guns and 255,000,000 motor vehicles.
>Fewer motor vehicles kill more people.
>Ergo they are more deadly.

Americans have 311,000,000 hearts, and heart problems kill 600,000 people per year. Ergo hearts are more deadly than cars or guns? And a rational person would see that and concede that hearts must be regulated more than guns?

That's the problem with apples to oranges comparisons. They're not always valid.

[rushmc 23]

That's the problem with apples to oranges comparisons. They're not always valid.

[billvon 2,998]

>Because humans do not build hearts

?? Uh - who do you think does?

>It appears that the apples to oranges comparison is all yours

Well, now it's apples to oranges to grapes. It's stupid to compare a vehicle to a deadly weapon to a human organ. One is designed for transportation; one is designed for killing and one is designed for pumping blood. They are all very different in design, purpose and function - and must be treated differently.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Because humans do not build hearts

?? Uh - who do you think does?

>It appears that the apples to oranges comparison is all yours

Well, now it's apples to oranges to grapes. It's stupid to compare a vehicle to a deadly weapon to a human organ. One is designed for transportation; one is designed for killing and one is designed for pumping blood. They are all very different in design, purpose and function - and must be treated differently.

Disagree

A vehicle and weapon are made by man

Both can be used to kill and both can have other funcions

The comparison here was used to show, in context, a comparison of vehicle deaths vs gun deaths

Gun o phobes think one is a problem and think it should be contorled more or eliminated. Vehicles are involved in more deaths and are ignored. If deaths are the issue then there is a sever lack of consistancy here

Yes they must be treated differently

But the heart one is not valid

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Please

Return to Creep0321's post just above

Read it very carefully

Then come back

In other words, you don't have an asnwer. Not very surprising.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Please

Return to Creep0321's post just above

Read it very carefully

Then come back

In other words, you don't have an asnwer. Not very surprising.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Americans own approximately 300,000,000 guns and 255,000,000 motor vehicles.

Fewer motor vehicles kill more people.

Ergo they are more deadly.

Q.E.D.

Aside from the question which is a more effective killing tool (maybe homicide numbers would yield a better comparison). We need to go back to the original question:

Quote

It is already illegal to be a lunatic and go hurting people. Would it be better if the lunatic used a bat?

My answer was yes. I would rather somebody come after me with a bat than with a gun. Why you ask? Well because my encounter with the gun is more likely to end in death than the encounter with the bat.

Why? Well, the gun is a much better tool for killing people than a bat is. I like my chances of defending myself against a bat much better than defending myself against a gun.

In that sense, rushmc is somewhat right, in the above scenario I am indeed more scared of a gun than a bat. I think most rational people would be.

The pro-gun crowd has a hard time agreeing with the above. In their miinds that is tantamount to agreeing that guns should be banned, restricted, regulated etc.

When people cannot even agree to simple facts, there is no sense in having a larger discussion.

Now, if people want to explain to me why they would prefer to be attacked by a lunatic with a gun over a lunatic with a bat. I am all ears.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Americans own approximately 300,000,000 guns and 255,000,000 motor vehicles.

Fewer motor vehicles kill more people.

Ergo they are more deadly.

Q.E.D.

Aside from the question which is a more effective killing tool (maybe homicide numbers would yield a better comparison). We need to go back to the original question:

Quote

It is already illegal to be a lunatic and go hurting people. Would it be better if the lunatic used a bat?

My answer was yes. I would rather somebody come after me with a bat than with a gun. Why you ask? Well because my encounter with the gun is more likely to end in death than the encounter with the bat.

Why? Well, the gun is a much better tool for killing people than a bat is. I like my chances of defending myself against a bat much better than defending myself against a gun.

In that sense, rushmc is somewhat right, in the above scenario I am indeed more scared of a gun than a bat. I think most rational people would be.

The pro-gun crowd has a hard time agreeing with the above. In their miinds that is tantamount to agreeing that guns should be banned, restricted, regulated etc.

When people cannot even agree to simple facts, there is no sense in having a larger discussion.

Now, if people want to explain to me why they would prefer to be attacked by a lunatic with a gun over a lunatic with a bat. I am all ears.

You are still missing the point

You are worried about the object

I am more worried about the person behind it

Ban guns or bats if you want.
All this does is take gun and bats away from the law abiding
Those who would kill do not care about those laws to begin with
So why do it?

In the end?

The killers will still be on the street and kill

So, bat, gun? I don’t really care
It is irrelevant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln