Who has seen ...

[mrsid99]

Mrsid, thats not a strong argument.

And a purely emotional one is of course?

 

[Osmer_Toby]

so what can a gun be used for other than killing?
target practice?
then we would have to say that the secondary purpose of a gun, target practice, is to get better at the primary purpose of the gun, which is killing.
other than target practice, what can a gun be used for? hunting?
and hunting is.....?

so i ask again: for what else can a gun be used?

 

[Luminosity]

During the movie they showed a stand up routine by Chris Rock ( ? ) ... Comedians are a wonderful thing as they take the serious topics we face in the world , make them funny and digestible yet they're still highlighting something we all need to face about ourselves. His routine went something to the tune of
" If bullets cost $ 5,000 each there'd be no more innocent bystanders. Coz you just know ... if someone gets shot , you'd be all " MAN ! You musta done SOMETHIN to REALLY P*** that person off !! A guy would be all worked up and fighting with someone else and he'd be like " You know what ?! I'd shoot you if I could afford it ! ... Yeah ... I tell ya somethin .. I'm gonna go get a job and save up some money .... THEN I'ma come back and kill ya ! God help us if they have lay-away available......."

Yeah I know I'm makin a joke about it but , hey .....
By the way ... even tho guns and shootin deaths are a big prob in the U.S ... its still a world , human issue we all need to face.

"If everyone howled at every injustice, every act of barbarism, every act of unkindness, then we would be taking the first step towards a real humanity". ~Nelson DeMille

 

[manda]

Mr Sid, what issue where there are 2 very opposing sides is ever not based on emotion?
I don't understand why you keep making the same comment about emotion.
The facts speak for themselves.

 

[mrsid99]

Mr Sid, what issue where there are 2 very opposing sides is ever not based on emotion?
I don't understand why you keep making the same comment about emotion.
The facts speak for themselves.

So why don't you mention facts?
You obviously don't want to move away from emotion.

 

[Luminosity]

Mr Sid, what issue where there are 2 very opposing sides is ever not based on emotion?
I don't understand why you keep making the same comment about emotion.
The facts speak for themselves.

So why don't you mention facts?
You obviously don't want to move away from emotion.

What cold hard facts ,in particular, are you looking for ?
When we argue, we argue based on what we know and our personal beliefs and of course emotions are tied in with these beliefs. You have a differing opinion obviously , yet somewhere in there would be some emotion tied in with your arguement as well.
Emotion doesnt mean clouded judgment.

 

[manda]

The facts are that people die because of guns, and people will continue to die because of guns.

 

[MDowdey]

so i ask again: for what else can a gun be used?

protecting your family.



md

 

[Osmer_Toby]

so i ask again: for what else can a gun be used?

protecting your family.



md

and with a gun this means killing. no one, not even mr. sid, can deny that the purpose of a gun is to kill.
gun proponents need to have some guts and step up and admit this much at least. it's asinine to suggest that guns can be used for anything other than killing.

a gun is a tool. it's purpose is to kill. only a coward or a fool would argue otherwise.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

i have a couple questions i'm chewing over:

1) statistically, does the us have more gun homicides per capita relative to other countries?

2) what percentage of all us homicides involves a gun?

3) is our murder rate per capita (murder by any means, not specific to guns) higher than the rest of the world's?

anyone have any idea what the cold hard facts are in answer to these?

 

[MDowdey]

no one is disputing the fact that a gun is a weapon....as a matter of fact, it is the most effective weapon ever created.

what im merely trying to say is there are two sides to it. sure, it has been used to commit murder, destroy families, instill fear...but...it has also preserved EVERYONES way of life, without a little force, your country or state or town would be pushed over and taken over by the next big thing...

md

 

[Osmer_Toby]

a couple related questions:

1) what would the ramifications be, assuming the results are universal and include the criminal element, if guns were not accessible to the general population?

2) why did the founding fathers include the second ammendment in the first place?

3) have social needs changed since the addition of the second ammendment relative to the original impetus for including the right of the average citizen to bear arms?

 

[Osmer_Toby]

no one is disputing the fact that a gun is a weapon....as a matter of fact, it is the most effective weapon ever created.

what im merely trying to say is there are two sides to it. sure, it has been used to commit murder, destroy families, instill fear...but...it has also preserved EVERYONES way of life, without a little force, your country or state or town would be pushed over and taken over by the next big thing...

md

ok, good, that argument has some merit. so you say the reason we need to have the right to bear arms is so we can prevent some as yet unnamed or unidentified undesirable power from taking control of our country? by this do you mean some foreign element or do you refer to a domestic threat to our way of life?

 

[MDowdey]

1) what would the ramifications be, assuming the results are universal and include the criminal element, if guns were not accessible to the general population?People would still kill others. those guns that were no longer available to the public would be stolen or sold illegaly.
2) why did the founding fathers include the second ammendment in the first place?
Because they were aware that one day every shoemaker, cobbler, breadmaker, and carpenter would have to take up arms to defend the very soil on which they live. and one day we might too.
3) have social needs changed since the addition of the second ammendment relative to the original impetus for including the right of the average citizen to bear arms?no.



md

 

[Osmer_Toby]

People would still kill others. those guns that were no longer available to the public would be stolen or sold illegaly.

i underlined including the criminal element, though, so this has no merit. it's a hypothetical question- if no one in the us other than regulated militia had access to guns, what would the ramifications be? by this i mean there are no guns available to be stolen.

please don't tell me this is an impossible scenario- i say again, it's a hypothetical question- i concede from the outset that in reality, divesting the population, and especially the criminal element, would be next to impossible. for the sake of this argument, however, assume it is possible--- how would this affect the murder rate in the us?