Another school shooting

[Flint]

Originally Posted by marichiko

...according to you, suffered a violent death...

No, according to the definition of the word violent. You're stuffing alot of words in my mouth :::spits them out:::

Originally Posted by Flint

No, according to the definition of the word violent. You're stuffing alot of words in my mouth :::spits them out:::

Hey, YOU posted it. You can always delete your post.

[morethanpretty]

3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

you forgot a few

[Flint]

I meant what I meant. Guns are designed to inflict harm. I didn't specify justfied or non-justified harm.
I simply meant that guns are designed to cause harm, while cars are designed to transport.

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

There are more responsible gun owners then you are giving them credit for.

I haven't said anything about gun owners...

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Flint

I meant what I meant. Guns are designed to inflict harm. I didn't specify justfied or non-justified harm.
I simply meant that guns are designed to cause harm, while cars are designed to transport.

I haven't said anything about gun owners...

So...what is your point then? that people shouldn't own guns because they are designed to cause harm? what about knives? Guns don't cause harm they are used by irresponsible criminal people to cause harm. That is no reason to condem the lawful citizens who feel more secure because they have a gun or use them to hunt. My comparison between the gun and car was simply to show that it isn't the design of an item that causes the problem, it is the person irresponsibly using it.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

So...what is your point then? that people shouldn't own guns because they are designed to cause harm? what about knives? Guns don't cause harm they are used by irresponsible criminal people to cause harm. That is no reason to condem the lawful citizens who feel more secure because they have a gun or use them to hunt.

I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.

"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

My comparison between the gun and car was simply to show that it isn't the design of an item that causes the problem, it is the person irresponsibly using it.

Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

:::launches furious internet search campaign, to cite example of death-by-toilet-paper-beating:::

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.

"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.

"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.

"Law abiding" responsible citizens are not likely to have their guns stolen or used on them. And their children are not likely to get possession of the weapon.

Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

The possibility is there...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
...

I know....the gun can't hurt anybody if it isn't wielded by a person, right? Ok. Let's have a showdown. I'll use a gun, you use a knife, OK?

Just as a gun can't do as much damage without a person, a person can't do as much damage without a gun.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
...

Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.

"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.


Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

I would be fine with not having my guns as long as NO ONE ELSE gets to have them either, ever... that means cops also.
Until that time... they stay.
BTW, I grew-up on a ranch and my side-arm was used as protection against snakes, boar and a myriad of other things. Not just humans. But, poachers were also an issue.
That you have a problem with people protecting themselves is suspect in my eyes.

Deer in the US are overpopulated, as are many other species, culling is nessicary... hunters are also the major supporters of most of your green, environmentalist, groups. Get educated.

[Spexxvet]

Dude - relax.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I would be fine with not having my guns as long as NO ONE ELSE gets to have them either, ever... that means cops also.
Until that time... they stay.

Because cops..??

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

BTW, I grew-up on a ranch and my side-arm was used as protection against snakes, boar and a myriad of other things. Not just humans. But, poachers were also an issue.

You couldn't have done that with a shotgun or rifle?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

That you have a problem with people protecting themselves is suspect in my eyes.

I don't. Buy a bulletproof vest, a burglar alarm, a knife, a rifle, a bodyguard, whatever. Why does defense/protection have to mean a handgun?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Deer in the US are overpopulated, as are many other species, culling is nessicary... hunters are also the major supporters of most of your green, environmentalist, groups. Get educated.

I said I don't have a problem with hunting for food.

Who, here, has ever had to use a gun to protect themselves? I am 47 years old, and have never needed a gun to defend myself. I am alive, never been robbed, haven't been in a fistfight since high school. Why do you pro gun folks feel like it's the only way to protect yourselves?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

So...what is your point then?

That cars and guns are not in the same catagory of items, for the reasons I stated. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Flint

That cars and guns are not in the same catagory of items, for the reasons I stated. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

Originally Posted by Flint

Okay, the full context: You asked me what my point was and then you answered your own question by providing my point for me.

It seems to me that what you're saying, and the only thing you're trying to say, is that I cannot compare the potential violence, in the possession of an irresponsible and/or criminal person, of guns vs cars just because they aren't the same thing?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

It seems to me that what you're saying, and the only thing you're trying to say, is that I cannot compare the potential violence, in the possession of an irresponsible and/or criminal person, of guns vs cars just because they aren't the same thing?

I honestly can't imagine how you managed to attribute such a specific multi-part meaning, of your own design, to me, with nothing that I've ever posted even resembling any part of it. It may "seem" that way to you, but you've got to ask yourself: why do I "seem" to be saying something that I never said? Where is it coming from? Me, or you? Or, from some association with a post/posts made by other person/persons that are also not me?