Another school shooting

[Flint]

Originally Posted by marichiko

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

Specifically, in response to a comparison of guns to cars, I posted that the primary purpose of cars is not violent.
Then, to clarify, I posted the definition of "violent" that I meant, and said "I didn't specify justfied or non-justified..."

Somehow, from this, you got:

Originally Posted by marichiko

So, Flint are you a vegetarian, then?

"You can always delete your post."

[glatt]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Well, that pretty much discredits your opinion on the subject. Full-auto guns aren't illegal at all, and although they are expensive, they are obtainable by those who can pass the background check. I've fired full-auto at the range, and could own one if I thought it was worth the expense...especially the ammunition expense.

Your "as the criminals are caught" scenario may be appealing to you, but it's totally false. After all, following that reasoning, there are no illegal drugs today, right?

My mistake. I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I thought machine guns were outlawed when really they are just heavily regulated. That proves my point even more though. If heavy regulation keeps a certain kind of gun out of a criminal's hands, then outright banning it will do an even better job.

Your drug example is a poor one, because drugs can be easily manufactured by individuals and are therefore hard to control. Guns require a factory. They are also much heavier and bulkier. Much harder to smuggle.

[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

ok we are totally getting caught up in a different subject altogther.

The point is that this man committed a violent act.
He wanted to commit a violent act. Because he was deranged or whatever.
Controlling guns would not have prevented him. Whether he got his arsenal legally or illegally he still would have gotten them.
He still would have killed the Amish girls.
The only possible way to have stopped him was to have recognized his mental instability beforehand and gotten him treatment.
And then he still had the potential to commit this act or a similar one.
It is tragic. It is a part of our lives.

my emphasis.

Girl - without the guns, he probably would have killed a girl. While he was stabbing, beating, whatever, the first girl, the others could have run away.

How do we resolve the "mental" problem? I think many people are crazy, starting with W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Would the "this person is crazy and needs to be dealt with before he commits a heinous act" turn into "mental health McCarthyism?"

Originally Posted by Flint

"You can always delete your post."

I will if you will. You go first. :p

[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 marichiko

I will if you will. You go first.

reply #1: okay then, on the count of three...
reply #2: nah, mine are okay, yours are the crap ones.
reply #3: :::shoots you:::

[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:::

[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 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. 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.

Flint you are using that sentence out of context...it is a part of a whole. To reiterate, I compared guns and cars to show that the original intent or purpose of the item is not the problem, or the cause of violence.

[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.

[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...

[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?

[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.