DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:shooting someone dead from 60 feet out?

1) Bow and arrow

2) Spear

3) Sling

4) Crossbow

another one reaching for extreme what-ifs......looks like the argument has fallen apart. See y'all after the weekend! I have some harness races to go lose money on!!

Based on your reply, you might as well lose money betting on the ponies as you don't have the brains to handle it.

So tc, I thought about your question because I wanted to give you a better answer, and this is what I came up with…(simplified)

Violence is most likely caused by dysfunctional communities, which I’m going to flesh out for you when I get home tonight.

But I will leave you this for now, in relation to poverty & violence.

Question: What’s more likely…poverty causes dysfunction, or dysfunction causes poverty?

I have a friend who goes bow hunting, he actually prefers the bow to guns, for many reasons.

Not too long ago bows were all the rage around here, and it was quite a scary time…Thankfully it was only a passing fad.

CUDA wrote:When was the last time some stopped to go get their gun in a crime of passion?

July 19, 2014

Spidey wrote:Not too long ago bows were all the rage around here, and it was quite a scary time…

Wait, so everyone walking around with guns instead of bows is supposed to be less scary?

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:When was the last time some stopped to go get their gun in a crime of passion?

July 19, 2014

Dont understand what a crime of passion is do you. No I'm geussing not by your choice of stories.

FYI just because the media chooses a cheeky title for their headline doesnt quailfy it as a crime of passion

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Not too long ago bows were all the rage around here, and it was quite a scary time…

Wait, so everyone walking around with guns instead of bows is supposed to be less scary?

No, that’s not what I said or meant, don’t load your questions, and you will get a respectable answer.

CUDA wrote:

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:When was the last time some stopped to go get their gun in a crime of passion?

July 19, 2014

Dont understand what a crime of passion is do you. No I'm geussing not by your choice of stories.

FYI just because the media chooses a cheeky title for their headline doesnt quailfy it as a crime of passion

She could have just as easily wacked off his peenie while he slept, like Bobbitt.

Spidey wrote:She could have just as easily wacked off his peenie while he slept, like Bobbitt.

But she didn't, and that's exactly the point I am making. "Could have" is the fantasy you live in versus what actually happened.

Spidey wrote:tc, If poverty is the cause of violence, why aren’t all poor people violent?

Why did that football player with everything knock his girlfriend silly in that elevator?

Why did OJ murder two people?

I know answering a question with a question is not kosher, but I don’t really have all of the answers as to why people are violent, but I do know what doesn’t cause it.

Some of the things I can think of….

The feelings of helplessness
You have been told someone owes you something
The idea that you are poor because someone else wants it that way
Improper upbringing
Lack of empathy
Booze
Anger
Evil….

The list is endless…who knows…but poverty in and of itself in not one of them.

I don’t accept poverty as an excuse for poor behavior…I just don’t.

Those who are poor tend to be more desperate. Not all of them, I agree with you there, but I'm betting a larger proportion of the poor rob, steal, do drugs and murder others on average than your person with a secure job, good income and a stable family. Sometimes they do what they have to do just survive. Granted, there are a lot of sociopaths and psychopaths running around, so mental illness is a big factor too. That's not being evil, it's mental illness, something our medical system hasn't been able to fix, ditto with getting religion either. That's why it's important that those who are mentally unstable or ill, or even tend towards violence against others, NOT be allowed to have access to guns. As for gang violence, most of that gun violence is caused by adolescent males establishing, protecting and warring over their turf and drug empires. So maybe it's because of too much testosterone combined with a lack of education and opportunity and just plain boredom. How about it we require all young gangsters arrested for gun crimes be neutered since we can't seem to keep them in school, nor find jobs for them either?

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:She could have just as easily wacked off his peenie while he slept, like Bobbitt.

But she didn't, and that's exactly the point I am making. "Could have" is the fantasy you live in versus what actually happened.

Sure, your point is she chose the gun, I get it. So am I to assume this guy would still be alive today if she didn’t have a gun?

Because my point…errr fantasy was if she didn’t have a gun, she could have poisoned him.

So I have to think you believe her only choice was the gun, otherwise I don’t get the point.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:She could have just as easily wacked off his peenie while he slept, like Bobbitt.

But she didn't, and that's exactly the point I am making. "Could have" is the fantasy you live in versus what actually happened.

Please show us how a gun facilitated this type of crime. You claimed guns facilitate certain crimes. Sure she used a gun. but as Spidey pointed out rightfully, she could have used something else. how did the gun cause this crime?
You refuse to get it.

CUDA wrote:and that hasn't been done before Guns?

you "throw" a spear. you "throw" a rock. you "throw" a knife. Even if you were to score a hit with a spear, you'd have to be within 60 feet. Exceptional would be 60-70 feet. But with a gun, a good hit is well within 150 feet.

point still stands.

CUDA wrote:When was the last time some stopped to go get their gun in a crime of passion?

Never. Because it then is no longer a crime of passion, it is now murder

Are you taking drugs now?

Phil Hartman. Steve McNair. Marvin Gaye. Those are three crimes of passion involving firearms that I could find within 30 seconds of searching.

Also, I don't think you understand what murder actually is.

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:and that hasn't been done before Guns?

you "throw" a spear. you "throw" a rock. you "throw" a knife. Even if you were to score a hit with a spear, you'd have to be within 60 feet. Exceptional would be 60-70 feet. But with a gun, a good hit is well within 150 feet.

point still stands.

Over look the bows? And 50 yards for a pistol you would have to be pretty dang good to hit the target.

woodchip wrote:
Over look the bows? And 50 yards for a pistol you would have to be pretty dang good to hit the target.

No, I didn't. Using arrows with spears would have been redundant.

and yes, 50 yards with a pistol would be an good shot. but not impossible.

Lot of dancing around and speculation in this thread from the gun lovers. You keep sayig could have instead of accepting what did happen. Could the assailant used a knife or a lamp? Sure! But when the assailant make the decision, they chose a gun. This is reality. Get used to it.

I totally accept what you are saying…but I am confused.

Is your point the gun was her only choice? That the gun has some kind of hypnotic control?

I don’t know, but somehow I get the distinct impression, that you are blaming the gun, and that is what you want people to accept.

Maybe you should clarify, so us dummies can understand.

vision wrote:Lot of dancing around and speculation in this thread from the gun lovers. You keep sayig could have instead of accepting what did happen. Could the assailant used a knife or a lamp? Sure! But when the assailant make the decision, they chose a gun. This is reality. Get used to it.

and what she did would be classified as "attempted murder".

Spidey wrote:Maybe you should clarify, so us dummies can understand.

Gun are an efficient technology.

Think of it this way, you can pound a nail into a wall with many different items; a shoe, a rock, the bottom of a beer bottle, a wrench, and of course a hammer among other things. Given that several of these items are readily available when someone wants to pound a nail, most people will choose the hammer. Even if there is a shoe or other item closer, most people will still walk into the next room and get a hammer. The more important the wall, the more serious the commitment to pounding the nail correctly with the right tool. In fact, if you have a lot of nails to pound you might even get a nail gun to make it easier.

If no hammers are available you can still pound some nails. However, you will probably screw up the walls, several nails, or yourself in the process. Some people will just say "screw it" and forget about pounding nails altogether.

vision wrote:Lot of dancing around and speculation in this thread from the gun lovers. You keep sayig could have instead of accepting what did happen. Could the assailant used a knife or a lamp? Sure! But when the assailant make the decision, they chose a gun. This is reality. Get used to it.

No, your idea of reality is skewed. Not all assailants choose a gun. I suggest you try more critical reasoning instead of knee jerk responses.

vision wrote:...

If no hammers are available you can still pound some nails. However, you will probably screw up the walls, several nails, or yourself in the process. Some people will just say "screw it" and forget about pounding nails altogether.

I think your theory kind of falls apart when making the jump from someone who wants build something with lumber and someone who wants to murder or use a weapon to otherwise assault a victim.

Taking the gun away as a tool choice isn't nearly as likely to interrupt the workflow of the criminal as it is taking the carpenters hammer from him.
And push come to shove a carpenter will improvise just like a criminal assailant will.
That's what pushing and shoving lead to....

So I was correct…you are saying she would have done nothing if she had not had a gun…well that’s a possibility…but more likely wishful thinking.

As far as the carpenter analogy…it’s pretty weak, because there may only be one tool for pounding in nails, but there are many tools available to do harm to another person.

Guns are efficient…I will give you that one.

Yes...cheap...easy...sexy...I will grant you those...but the only way...sorry...

Of course if all murder was attempted by lazy people...you might be on to something.

Spidey wrote:As far as the carpenter analogy…it’s pretty weak, because there may only be one tool for pounding in nails, but there are many tools available to do harm to another person.

Holy ★■◆● you cannot read. I had no idea that people on this forum cannot decipher metaphor. The reading level here is... wow. Here I'll point it out one...more... time.......... slooooooowwwwwwlllyyyyyyy......................


"you can pound a nail into a wall with many different items"

Does not mean:

"you can pound a nail into a wall with only a hammer"


Ok, I'll let you guys jerk each other off some more since you can't grasp simple concepts.

Vision, keep it professional. You can make your point without taking shots at readers' intelligence.

Foil wrote:Vision, keep it professional. You can make your point without taking shots at readers' intelligence.

an even-handed observer could see why he is getting frustrated, with such a simple concept getting missed so completely, don't you think?

callmeslick wrote:

Foil wrote:Vision, keep it professional. You can make your point without taking shots at readers' intelligence.

an even-handed observer could see why he is getting frustrated, with such a simple concept getting missed so completely, don't you think?

I agree with you. why doesn't he understand that Guns don't cause Violence

CUDA wrote:I agree with you. why doesn't he understand that Guns don't cause Violence

I'll restate my position again since you missed it the first, second, and every other time. Guns make certain types of violence easier, thus contributing to the total effect of violence (death, injury, etc...). I know you are hung up on the phrase "Guns don't cause Violence" because you are not used to thinking outside of the sound bites you feed on.

That 'contribution' is very tenuously clinging to negligible status compared to the root causes. Root causes that are often considered taboo...unspoken by rule. Therefore any discussion that is led toward the gun as a problem is suspicious at best.

Alcohol cause way more innocent people to die than any firearms do.

11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. In 2010

32,479 traffic fatalities in 2011

So by Vision logic there are 3 times the number of traffic related deaths so automobiles must facilitate certain types of automobile related deaths. I'm guessing that would be the type of death where an automobile is used

The most deadly weapon in the US is a set of car keys.

Edit: beaten, dammit cuda.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:As far as the carpenter analogy…it’s pretty weak, because there may only be one tool for pounding in nails, but there are many tools available to do harm to another person.

Holy ★■◆● you cannot read. I had no idea that people on this forum cannot decipher metaphor. The reading level here is... wow. Here I'll point it out one...more... time.......... slooooooowwwwwwlllyyyyyyy......................


"you can pound a nail into a wall with many different items"

Does not mean:

"you can pound a nail into a wall with only a hammer"


Ok, I'll let you guys jerk each other off some more since you can't grasp simple concepts.

So from your very words…you must feel that a gun is the only “proper” tool to kill with.

Krom wrote:The most deadly weapon in the US is a set of car keys.

Edit: beaten, dammit cuda.

See…vision was given his points.

Yes…she chose the gun
Yes…guns are designed to kill
Yes…guns are cheap and efficient…
Yes…Yes…we get it.

But he doesn’t want to see other points of view, he wants everyone to see his point…then shut up, when they don’t he acts like a spoiled child and throws a tantrum.

woodchip wrote:Alcohol cause way more innocent people to die than any firearms do.

I wouldn't doubt that statistic. Yet, we have tightened rules around drinking to address that. Why no sensible rules or staffing of enforcement agencies for firearms safety?

Well, if the anti-gun lobbies would stop scaring the hell out of the pro-gun people, kinda the way the anti-abortion folks keep scaring the hell out of the pro-choice people, maybe we would.

Spidey wrote:Well, if the anti-gun lobbies would stop scaring the hell out of the pro-gun people, kinda the way the anti-abortion folks keep scaring the hell out of the pro-choice people, maybe we would.

a rational look at the situation would show you that the source of the fear-mongering is from the NRA, whose finances depended on a scared base.

Yea...well...I never was the rational type.

woodchip wrote:Alcohol cause way more innocent people to die than any firearms do.

Yes, and it is a bigger problem than guns. There needs to be more attention paid to responsible alcohol use and treatment of addiction.

CUDA wrote:So by Vision logic there are 3 times the number of traffic related deaths so automobiles must facilitate certain types of automobile related deaths.

It's the reason we have safety standards for vehicles, and why some are more dangerous than others, and why there are any traffic laws to begin with, and why you pay different levels of insurance for different automobiles. And your point is?

Krom wrote:The most deadly weapon in the US is a set of car keys.

Which is why I've said several times that there are many more important (and deadly) things to worry about than gun restrictions.

Spidey wrote:So from your very words…you must feel that a gun is the only “proper” tool to kill with.

Never used the word proper, I said efficient. If you wanted to kill someone gruesomely then another tool might be proper. Killing can be an art. But I believe most people want to kill someone with as little effort as possible, and you can't get much easier than point & click. It's why we have mouse pointers!

Spidey wrote:But he doesn’t want to see other points of view, he wants everyone to see his point…then shut up, when they don’t he acts like a spoiled child and throws a tantrum.

Pointing out how surprisingly incapable my audience is does not qualify as a tantrum, haha. But hey, you obviously interpret things in a "special" way so sure, "tantrum," whatever you say man.

And for the record it seems that everyone here agrees that you can kill all sorts of people with all sorts of things, so if we ban all the guns that shouldn't make too much of a difference, right? You can use a bow & arrow, a spear, a knife, a lamp... all fantastic ways to protect yourself and your family.

Good to know! You said it yourself!

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Alcohol cause way more innocent people to die than any firearms do.

I wouldn't doubt that statistic. Yet, we have tightened rules around drinking to address that. Why no sensible rules or staffing of enforcement agencies for firearms safety?

What rules have we tightened? Any drunk person can still get behind the wheel and drive. We have far more sensible rule and laws for firearm possession and use than we do have controlling the sale and use of alcohol.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Alcohol cause way more innocent people to die than any firearms do.

I wouldn't doubt that statistic. Yet, we have tightened rules around drinking to address that. Why no sensible rules or staffing of enforcement agencies for firearms safety?

What rules have we tightened? Any drunk person can still get behind the wheel and drive. We have far more sensible rule and laws for firearm possession and use than we do have controlling the sale and use of alcohol.

we have raised minimum ages for purchase, lowered blood alcohol limits, on and on. In fact, it's sort of astounding that you make the statement above. In some states a 7 year old can possess a firearm.