The fools of the left...

[CUDA]

no it doesn't. there is not a single example that i gave you that has to do with definite shooting of other people. there is the potential for someone to get shot.
but you only wishing to see the worst in the scenario. not the reality.

so you slamming Will and then using a bad slanted example of your own in bad form. you said the sole purpose for guns is killing people. that's wrong

[Top Gun]

no it doesn't. there is not a single example that i gave you that has to do with definite shooting of other people. there is the potential for someone to get shot.
but you only wishing to see the worst in the scenario. not the reality.

or at least presenting the threat of shooting at another person

Protecting your family = threatening to shoot someone
Self-defense = threatening to shoot someone
Deterring crimes = threatening to shoot someone
Detaining criminals = Frequently brandishing weapon, rarely discharging it = threatening to shoot someone
Guarding our national borders = do I really need to keep typing this out?
Preserving our interests abroad = one hell of a lot of shooting
Defending our allies = See above.
Overcoming tyranny = lulz aside, see above again.

Looks like 50% to me. I did get a chuckle out of the "international trade" one, though...shockingly enough, trading guns requires the existence of guns!

you said the sole purpose for guns is killing people. that's wrong

I said that the only reason guns exist in the first place is to shoot at people, and that's basic historical fact. The Chinese originally developed firearms as weapons of war, and it's certainly been their most common usage since then.

[Will Robinson]

Which man is more at risk of dying?
Does the existence of the bridge increases the risk of both men to have suicidal thoughts?
Is the man who isn't going to kill himself in anyway responsible for the other mans death because he uses that same bridge and has paid taxes to maintain it?
Should the government restrict every ones access to the bridge? Maybe only allow trained emergency and police to use the bridge because it is too dangerous to let the average person access to it?

If you can convince me that the Golden Gate Bridge's sole purpose for existence is to kill people, as in the case of a firearm, then maybe that argument holds up.

What argument do you think I make there? What does the purpose of a firearm have to do with that argument or your ability to refute said argument?

I think you might be trying to say that because you see no 'good' reason for people to have guns they should be done away with. Is that the position you are offering?

If so, what about over 120,000 times per year that good law abiding people use a gun to ward off a violent attack?!?
Should they have to suffer those attacks because you think the gun and the bridge calls people to commit suicide but since the guns primary design is to kill it should be done away with? The bridge is of a more benign design purpose so it can stay?

Maybe you could suggest those 120,000+ victims your proposal just put in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death can start hitting their assailants with the Golden Gate bridge since it was designed to carry automobiles instead of kill people!!

Go logic!! Obama voter?

[CUDA]

no it doesn't. there is not a single example that i gave you that has to do with definite shooting of other people. there is the potential for someone to get shot.
but you only wishing to see the worst in the scenario. not the reality.

or at least presenting the threat of shooting at another person

Protecting your family = threatening to shoot someone
Self-defense = threatening to shoot someone
Deterring crimes = threatening to shoot someone
Detaining criminals = Frequently brandishing weapon, rarely discharging it = threatening to shoot someone
Guarding our national borders = do I really need to keep typing this out?
Preserving our interests abroad = one hell of a lot of shooting
Defending our allies = See above.
Overcoming tyranny = lulz aside, see above again.

Looks like 50% to me. I did get a chuckle out of the "international trade" one, though...shockingly enough, trading guns requires the existence of guns!

you do understand the difference in a threat and actually shooting someone don't you??? that is a rhetorical question, your posts prove you don't.

you said the sole purpose for guns is killing people. that's wrong

I said that the only reason guns exist in the first place is to shoot at people, and that's basic historical fact. The Chinese originally developed firearms as weapons of war, and it's certainly been their most common usage since then.

you said the sole purpose of a gun is to kill someone. you were wrong just admit it and move on.

[Heretic]

Weapons have been a facet of human development. A weapon is a tool used to kill or incapacitate a person or animal. It may be used to attack and defend, or in some instances just to threaten. The use of weapons has been recorded since the advent of cave painting. Only way to stop the violence is to get rid of humans. Man has been killing each other since the dawn of time and getting rid of guns will not stop it.

[Spidey]

The problem with all statistics, as I have pointed out numerous times is…they can be made to make just about any point, depending on the motives of the person compiling the “data”.

There is way too much omission of factors in these “studies” to lend credibility, such as in the case of the one cited here…where is the data concerning as to whether the people who own firearms might be more likely killed anyway.

Maybe people who own firearm are those more likely to be violence victims in the first place. (before gun ownership)

Studies and statistics are made to manipulate.

And besides, it’s your choice to accept any risk involved with owning firearms, the same as taking a plane to Florida, over the train. If you are risking others…then that is a different issue.

If you do own a firearm, you need to understand the risks, simple as that…but what you don’t need is some “study” to tell you what they are.

Studies also tell me lots and lots of people slip and kill themselves in the bathtub, so do I get rid of the bathtub…or treat it with the respect it deserves?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Let me intervene in the argument between CUDA and Top Gun. I think you've mis-communicated your point, CUDA. Top Gun is mostly correct, but he is talking about the intended purpose of the firearm as an instrument, not the owner's purpose in possessing that instrument (that's what is being said, technically). I think you can agree that the following are true statements:
1) The sole purpose of a firearm is to shoot SOMETHING.
2) The sole purpose of a firearm possessed for self-defense is to shoot SOMEONE.
3) The owner's sole purpose for possessing a firearm for self-defense is to possess the means to exert deadly force.

CUDA is trying to say that the highest ideal of average citizens, military (defensive military), and law enforcement for firearms possession and carry is to protect/guard, not to kill. I absolutely agree.

[woodchip]

That study has suicide in it. You'll have to remove that to prove your assertion. Unless you really meant to say people who have guns, AND want to kill themselves, are more likely to use their gun. But then that doesn't prove that owning a gun for non suicidal purposes, a category that over 99% of gun owners fit into, are also more likely to die from a gun!!

Guns don't cause suicide therefore you can't include those that chose to commit suicide by gun as having been at greater risk by virtue of the guns existence. Their desire to kill themselves comes from something other than gun ownership and whatever those reason were they are the cause of the increased risk, not the gun.

oh, please. This is beyond cherry-picking. You are merely trying to assume a result other than what is shown. Death is Death. The facts don't lie.
As an aside, I find it endlessly amusing when some folks, such as yourself above, feel the need to pop off and try and assert that I am making facts up, when, by this time, it ought to be expected that I am just sitting on the link to make you look foolish. Keep it up, because, like I said above, laughter is great for the soul!

While a gun may be the preferred method of suicide, what you cleverly don't ask is, "would the suicide not happen sans guns. Link is for suicide methods in various countries. What you will see in countries like United Kingdom,where firearms are banned, is suicide by hanging is very popular. So by your logic slick we should next look at banning the sale of rope.:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/ ... le-T1.html

[woodchip]

Let me intervene in the argument between CUDA and Top Gun. I think you've mis-communicated your point, CUDA. Top Gun is mostly correct, but he is talking about the intended purpose of the firearm as an instrument, not the owner's purpose in possessing that instrument (that's what is being said, technically). I think you can agree that the following are true statements:
1) The sole purpose of a firearm is to shoot SOMETHING.

Agreed

2) The sole purpose of a firearm possessed for self-defense is to shoot SOMEONE.

Disagree. Prof. John Lott has shown that more attacks are stopped by letting the would be attacker know you are armed.

3) The owner's sole purpose for possessing a firearm for self-defense is to possess the means to exert deadly force.

Partially agree. If all else fails then the ability to prevent your death by killing the attacker is your last ditch option.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You confused me for a minute with the way you did that, woody!

2) The sole purpose of a firearm possessed for self-defense is to shoot SOMEONE.

Disagree. Prof. John Lott has shown that more attacks are stopped by letting the would be attacker know you are armed.

That is certainly true. However, logically speaking that only works because the purpose of a firearm (possessed for self-defense) is to shoot someone. The would-be attacker, knowing that, is warded off by the warning. It's really almost nitpicking at that point, on my part, IMO, but I think there is a logical separation there. You have dual purposes, but the one clearly depends on the other. I'll admit I don't totally have my brain wrapped around the distinction.

3) The owner's sole purpose for possessing a firearm for self-defense is to possess the means to exert deadly force.

Partially agree. If all else fails then the ability to prevent your death by killing the attacker is your last ditch option.

Absolutely. Just because you possess the means doesn't mean you will necessarily use it at any time. It's there if and when you determine that it is called for.

[Top Gun]

I certainly wasn't trying to imply here that everyone who owns a firearm for self-defense is going to discharge it 100% of the time in those sorts of situations, but as Thorne put it, the only reason it acts as a deterrence in the first place is because intended to shoot people, and that's the threat presented by brandishing it.

[Will Robinson]

I certainly wasn't trying to imply here that everyone who owns a firearm for self-defense is going to discharge it 100% of the time in those sorts of situations, but as Thorne put it, the only reason it acts as a deterrence in the first place is because intended to shoot people, and that's the threat presented by brandishing it.

So do you at least conceded that guns serve a good purpose when used by law abiding people who aren't suicidal? 120,000+ per year self defenders are waiting for your permission to survive their pending violent attack!

Or is the suicide siren song of the gun too much for you to allow even if it just saved only 1 life....err.... I mean 120,000+ lives?

[callmeslick]

as I've tried to say repeatedly, I'm not in favor of outright banning guns. Here, however, might be a place to make an exception:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Lad ... ORM=IQFRBA