DJL 232 #101 September 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnything ~can~ be used to kill a person. A handgun is explicitly designed to kill a person. Nobody is going to steal your silverware and use it to rob or kill someone else. It may not be "silverware" but people don't use knives to commit armed robbery, and murder people? Most murders with knives, according to what I've read, employ kitchen knives -- very often either a steak knife or a butcher-type knife. Please look up the definition of "explicit" and peruse my post and the previous for relevance."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #102 September 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnything ~can~ be used to kill a person. A handgun is explicitly designed to kill a person. Nobody is going to steal your silverware and use it to rob or kill someone else. It may not be "silverware" but people don't use knives to commit armed robbery, and murder people? Most murders with knives, according to what I've read, employ kitchen knives -- very often either a steak knife or a butcher-type knife. Please look up the definition of "explicit" and peruse my post and the previous for relevance. Maybe you can tell me why it should really matter that handguns are "explicitly designed to kill," when even though THEY ARE and AUTOMOBILES ARE NOT, still the automobiles manage to kill more people each year in the U.S. than guns do!! This is arguing pointless distinction, DJL! If you get killed by someone who uses an implement that is NOT "explicitly designed to kill," are you any less dead?! If people, on average, are managing to kill other people more often with an item that is NOT designed to kill than with one that IS designed to kill, which will you treat as the greater societal problem? And why?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #103 September 2, 2008 >It may not be "silverware" but people don't use knives to commit armed >robbery, and murder people? Yes, they do. They also use cars and rocks. That does not mean that it is just as bad to leave an empty car with a rock in it unlocked as an empty car with a gun in it unlocked. Guns are more dangerous than rocks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #104 September 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo, a victim of a crime bears some responsibility for the crime? Don't cherry pick, it's either yes or no. Its more like the victim of a crime bears responsibility for a further crime. That's even more ridiculous. Why is it more ridiculous? If, for example, a construction worker at the end of the day leaves the keys in the ignition of a bulldozer and someone then hops in the bulldozer and, because of the keys being in there, joyrides and does a ton of damage..why *shouldn't* the construction worker bear some responsibility? maybe not criminal charges, but certainly some kind of civil liability. I think that with certain rights/privileges comes a heightened level of responsibility that applies in the exercise of those rights/privileges. I am sick of the attribution of criminal wrongdoing to the people who did not commit the crime! It's not a crime to leave the keys there, right? So whatever someone does after criminally taking possession of those keys is the one responsible. There can be no logical end to the path you are attempting to put us on with this. Soon, if a woman is walking around with a diamond necklace, and it's snatched from her neck by a mugger, and he sells it for cash with which he buys a gun on the black market, you'll say that she bears responsibility for the killings he commits with that gun because she did not safeguard the diamond necklace that got him the cash to buy the gun to use to kill people! WHERE [I]CAN[/I] THIS ABSURD "LOGIC" END? I think that the cause/effect from the situation/hypothetical I presented and the one you presented are vastly different. I was getting at the 'responsibility' aspect, not so much the 'criminal' aspect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #105 September 2, 2008 QuoteI think that the cause/effect from the situation/hypothetical I presented and the one you presented are vastly different. I was getting at the 'responsibility' aspect, not so much the 'criminal' aspect. Well of what import is ascribing "responsibility" to someone for an action if there is not going to be attendant criminal sanction? Or even just civil liability? Without either of those, "responsibility" for the criminal getting the gun is what, just an abstraction, really.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #106 September 2, 2008 Quote>It may not be "silverware" but people don't use knives to commit armed >robbery, and murder people? Yes, they do. They also use cars and rocks. That does not mean that it is just as bad to leave an empty car with a rock in it unlocked as an empty car with a gun in it unlocked. Guns are more dangerous than rocks. Now please address the fact that the things that are deemed "less dangerous" are actually killing more people than those deemed "dangerous." That leaves society to have to answer the question, "Which problem do we tackle first?" To a 1-year-old child, who can't even handle a gun or make it fire, a swimming pool is FAR more dangerous (statistically and realistically) than a gun is. Gasoline is everywhere. People have it stored at their homes, it's in their cars, it can be purchased without age restrictions or background checks, by everyone from the very sane to the horridly insane. It is more dangerous than guns are. But gasoline itself doesn't kill as many people as guns do, does it. Probably not by ingestion, and also probably not by arson. But since it's more dangerous than guns are, should we be focused more on controlling it than we on controlling guns? No, we should probably deal with the things that kill the most people, soonest.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #107 September 2, 2008 >Now please address the fact that the things that are deemed "less dangerous" >are actually killing more people than those deemed "dangerous." Skydiving is more dangerous than sleeping. But more people die while sleeping than while skydiving. If you don't understand that, then we don't have anything more to discuss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #108 September 2, 2008 Quote>Now please address the fact that the things that are deemed "less dangerous" >are actually killing more people than those deemed "dangerous." Skydiving is more dangerous than sleeping. But more people die while sleeping than while skydiving. If you don't understand that, then we don't have anything more to discuss. Come on, Billvon, don't just rush to be condescending and shut the convo down--not when you clearly know that it's not SLEEPING that KILLS those people.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #109 September 2, 2008 You're right. I also know a guy who choked to death on a hot dog. Public service announcement: lock up your weiners."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #110 September 2, 2008 Quote You're right. I also know a guy who choked to death on a hot dog. Public service announcement: lock up your weiners. "Lock up your weiners, lock up your knives, lock up your back door, and run for your lives!" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #111 September 3, 2008 Quote But what was in my "previous post" that was so barbaric?? Did you mean "posts"? Not only do they come here to live, the first thing my German friends in Houston did was to buy pistols. Quite an age difference between them: one fought on the Eastern Front and is now a Texan, the other, a young engineer, went home and later moved to Spain. Both had bought HHKs. The older guy took the 9mm back and exchanged it for a .45 (nice choice). Wow. Is it that easy for aliens to obtain a hand gun over there ??? Jeez. Seems, you guys sell your deadly weapons to everybody. Seriously, I doubt that, let's say, I doubt that story. Furthermore, the "Germans" surely will have big troubles to leave your wonderful country with weapons in their luggage and also, to enter ours (with hand or other guns). Re Arnold Schwarzenegger: If such a ... let's say: simple ... actor is able to become a gov in your country: that speaks volumes. But, not about him. He's not the first actor to fill a position in higher policy, IIRC. Looking forward to next story ............. Doubt the story? Ok. You doubt the story. Of course the younger guy sold his firearms before returning home. The smart one, (the old guy who fought on the Eastern Front), stayed. PS If Germany had ignored Hitler, the NRA would not be able to use your country as an example of disarming the public to enslave the public. What do you use for protection? Beer steins?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #112 September 3, 2008 Quote ..., Doubt the story? Ok. You doubt the story. Of course the younger guy sold his firearms before returning home. The smart one, (the old guy who fought on the Eastern Front), stayed. PS If Germany had ignored Hitler, the NRA would not be able to use your country as an example of disarming the public to enslave the public. What do you use for protection? Beer steins? I see. So, the younger guy surely made a fine little profit by bying / selling the gun. Yeah. What your NRA is using or not, does not bother me a bit. Your "weapon culture" is not ours. Protection agains what??? A sharp tongue is not enough? If I should need anything for protection, anyhow that would not be beer stains. All the American tourists are occupying. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill_K 0 #113 September 8, 2008 QuoteQuote>It may not be "silverware" but people don't use knives to commit armed >robbery, and murder people? Yes, they do. They also use cars and rocks. That does not mean that it is just as bad to leave an empty car with a rock in it unlocked as an empty car with a gun in it unlocked. Guns are more dangerous than rocks. Now please address the fact that the things that are deemed "less dangerous" are actually killing more people than those deemed "dangerous." That leaves society to have to answer the question, "Which problem do we tackle first?" To a 1-year-old child, who can't even handle a gun or make it fire, a swimming pool is FAR more dangerous (statistically and realistically) than a gun is. Gasoline is everywhere. People have it stored at their homes, it's in their cars, it can be purchased without age restrictions or background checks, by everyone from the very sane to the horridly insane. It is more dangerous than guns are. But gasoline itself doesn't kill as many people as guns do, does it. Probably not by ingestion, and also probably not by arson. But since it's more dangerous than guns are, should we be focused more on controlling it than we on controlling guns? No, we should probably deal with the things that kill the most people, soonest. Last time I checked, a gun, of any type, took a HUMAN to either physically or by some other means setup and cause it to fire. Therefore if your going to deal with the things that kill the most people you need to start by dealing with the people. Public hangings would probably be a good start... or better yet, firing squads... sigh. People always want to turn guns into the problem, but the problem is the people that use them. Always has been and always will be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #114 September 9, 2008 Well, technically yes, I agree with you -- going after the tools of criminality is beyond useless. But I was addressing my point to those who seem to feel the need to go after inanimate things, and pointing out that if that's the plan, at least we should go after the bigger killers before the smaller-scale killers, which would put guns a bit further down the list than they are right now.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
