Started By
Message

re: Man kills wife, 22 weeks pregnant, cleaning a loaded firearm

Posted on 3/11/14 at 3:22 pm to
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
115213 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 3:22 pm to
You're conflating now. And still ignoring the Constitution.
And wrt this particular instance, what gun-control law would've prevented this?
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 3:23 pm
Posted by MIZ_COU
I'm right here
Member since Oct 2013
13771 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 3:28 pm to
Nope I am making the EXACT same argument with something you don't agree with to see if your brain can handle it. So far the answer is it can't
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
115213 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 3:33 pm to
Guns are already regulated. As is heroin, as are nuclear materials, as are cars. So I'm not sure exactly what argument you're making.
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
70044 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:03 pm to
quote:

Nope I am making the EXACT same argument with something you don't agree with to see if your brain can handle it. So far the answer is it can't



If private citizens owning firearms were outlawed, this accident still would have happened. The guy in the OP was a government employee, a law enforcement officer in fact.

You seem to love the idea of infringing upon my constitutional right to bare arms.
Posted by Rebelgator
Pripyat Bridge
Member since Mar 2010
39545 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:10 pm to
quote:

Are you suggesting that cars and guns, if not operated by people, would cause harm?


Have you tried looking at one of the new Rover Evoques without projectile vomiting?
Posted by MIZ_COU
I'm right here
Member since Oct 2013
13771 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:12 pm to
While I'm conflating, and ignoring the constitution, (because there is apparently something in the constitution about pointing out something that doesn't make sense).
but everything is already regulated and grand. So likewise I have on idea what anybody is arguing.

Maybe I just don't like the statement Guns don't do harm people do. Maybe I find it offensively idiotic when it is used in the context of children being shot as it so often is.

Could you gun lovers at least change it to something that makes sense such as Guns don't shoot people people firing guns shoot people.
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
70044 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:14 pm to
quote:

Could you gun lovers at least change it to something that makes sense such as Guns don't shoot people people firing guns shoot people.




No
Posted by wadewilson
Member since Sep 2009
37380 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:14 pm to
I still have an involuntary knee-jerk reaction any time I see a Plymouth Prowler. I've injured a prom date, 2 cocktail waitresses, and a schnauzer to date.
Posted by MIZ_COU
I'm right here
Member since Oct 2013
13771 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:14 pm to
quote:

You seem to love the idea of infringing upon my constitutional right to bare arms.

I have said nothing in this thread about anybody's right to bear arms dumb arse. And I will take my constitutional right to bear arms as a nuclear weapon thank you very much
Posted by Rebelgator
Pripyat Bridge
Member since Mar 2010
39545 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:16 pm to
quote:

schnauzer



Probably deserved it.
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
70044 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:21 pm to


Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
42892 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:48 pm to
If you want to get technical about it, guns don't kill anyone. The force and blood loss caused by bullets fired from guns cause death. I guess it is about what definition of "cause" you want to argue about, since there are various types.

What is the point of a firearm, anyway? Well, they are relative easy to operate, require little skill to be effective at close range, and are a force equalizer. That means that a little old lady can deal out just as much (or more) force to an attacker than the attacker can to her, regardless of his size and strength.

Get rid of guns and we're back to being at the mercy of the biggest, strongest, and fastest evil-doers out there. Ever seen what a knife attack looks like? Go ahead and google some pictures; it's pretty gross.

Firearms do serve a purpose: they exist to deal potentially life-ending force to others. Is this bad in and of itself? No. The person who uses it to save their life or the lives of others against an assault is using it for good. The statement "guns don't kill people; people kill people" may not sound good to you, but it is meant to convey a simple truth: inanimate objects are neither morally good or bad by themselves, but can be used by humans for both good and bad ends.

The function of a gun is irrelevant to this discussion, though, if the discussion is about lives saved and lost. If you want to talk about that by itself, then we can start talking about hammers, pools, cars, fists, and feet. If you want to go back to the "purpose" of a gun compared to those other things, then you are getting into shaky ground, since all things have positives and negatives to them.
Posted by Alahunter
Member since Jan 2008
90739 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:51 pm to
quote:

Could you gun lovers at least change it to something that makes sense such as Guns don't shoot people people firing guns shoot people


I will. The moment anti gun folks can give a definitive description of an assault weapon and what the difference is in it, and a full auto military rifle.
Posted by MIZ_COU
I'm right here
Member since Oct 2013
13771 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:54 pm to
quote:

assault weapon and what the difference is in it, and a full auto military rifle.

There is no difference.

BTW I own guns
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
42892 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:56 pm to
I suppose you know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully-automatic rifle, then? If so, then you know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "rifle".
Posted by Duke
Twin Lakes, CO
Member since Jan 2008
36341 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 4:58 pm to
I really want to support gun control, but I can't see any practical purpose to any constitutional regulations. Since I always prefer no regulation to bad/ineffective regulation...guess I'm pro-gun.
Posted by weedGOKU666
THE 'COLA
Member since Jan 2013
3739 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 5:01 pm to
quote:

Have you tried looking at one of the new Rover Evoques without projectile vomiting?


The wrongest of opinions
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
115213 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 5:02 pm to
quote:

Maybe I just don't like the statement Guns don't do harm people do. Maybe I find it offensively idiotic when it is used in the context of children being shot as it so often is.


I'm not sure why it bothers you in that context. Children die in car crashes all the time, and rarely is the car thought to be at fault.

Sure, a huge projectile weighing thousands of pounds factored into the equation, but the decision-making nexus is at the person level. Not the accelerator. Or the brakes.

You may not like what that argument does to your position as a "gun hater." But it is a rational argument. And as an analogy, it functions pretty well.
Posted by Alahunter
Member since Jan 2008
90739 posts
Posted on 3/11/14 at 5:09 pm to
Yep. Take car chases for instance, where someone dies or is severely injured. It's not the car that gets the blame, it's the drivers.
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 5Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter