DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:Picketers or labor union thugs brought in and paid to pose as protesters, as they have been employed numerous times in the recent past by the Obama administration/campaign every time the dems want to shape public opinion on an issue they want elevated? Remember the Obama phone lady and all her supposed friends protesting?

paranoia reigns supreme with you tonight, huh? No, sorry, I saw the pictures in the paper, and they were just locals. I recognized a few folks from around town, most were politically active(both Dems and Republicans, by the way).

Will Robinson wrote:Is this an example of how you will carry out problem solving in a calm rational way if we take your advice and respectfully come to share our concerns that your side is fomenting hateful propaganda about us?!?
You jump to join in topguns stupid hateful hyperbole and inflame the discourse like a trained agitator. Lol! Way to show your true colors and prove my point slick.

sarcasm equates to agitation? You seem a bit jumpy today.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Picketers or labor union thugs brought in and paid to pose as protesters, as they have been employed numerous times in the recent past by the Obama administration/campaign every time the dems want to shape public opinion on an issue they want elevated? Remember the Obama phone lady and all her supposed friends protesting?

paranoia reigns supreme with you tonight, huh? No, sorry, I saw the pictures in the paper, and they were just locals. I recognized a few folks from around town, most were politically active(both Dems and Republicans, by the way).

Anyone notice when protestors come out in support of a liberal plan, they are just everyday nice folks. When they protest like the tea party people did, they are loons and whack jobs of the worst sort.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Picketers or labor union thugs brought in and paid to pose as protesters, as they have been employed numerous times in the recent past by the Obama administration/campaign every time the dems want to shape public opinion on an issue they want elevated? Remember the Obama phone lady and all her supposed friends protesting?

paranoia reigns supreme with you tonight, huh? No, sorry, I saw the pictures in the paper, and they were just locals. I recognized a few folks from around town, most were politically active(both Dems and Republicans, by the way).

Anyone notice when protestors come out in support of a liberal plan, they are just everyday nice folks. When they protest like the tea party people did, they are loons and whack jobs of the worst sort.

I dunno, the Tea Party people were locals, too, from what I saw. Touch of paranoia on your part, too, perhaps?

Flip, it may have utterly nothing to do with guns, but there is this:
http://entertainment.msn.com/videoprevi ... 7cddea50b0

flip wrote:Unless you confiscate every single weapon in America, the criminal and deranged will still find a way to access one and all you have really done is make criminals of law-abiding citizens. .

now, before the usual suspects rant that old Slick wants to confiscate all guns, let me be clear: I can't see that being a solution that would fly, nor that I would desire to pursue. However, that said, let's look at your logic, above.......if you outlaw weapons and confiscate them, two things seem very obvious.
First, the simple math involved would argue that criminals and the deranged would have MUCH more difficulty getting guns, just because the number on the available black market would be massively lower and the penalties for exchange providing far more risk. Second, since by definition law abiding people would have abided by the law, you wouldn't be making them criminals whatsoever. Only if they chose to become law breaking citizens would that be the case. Follow me here?

Except that gun control is a sane proposition, whereas people who ran out and started hoarding AR-15s are not.

Actually, that was a very smart thing to do if any of those people ever had the intention of owning one. Like I said, outright confiscation is highly unlikely and anyone that owns an AR-15 before any legislation is drawn are more than likely to be grandfathered in.

now, before the usual suspects rant that old Slick wants to confiscate all guns, let me be clear: I can't see that being a solution that would fly, nor that I would desire to pursue. However, that said, let's look at your logic, above.......if you outlaw weapons and confiscate them, two things seem very obvious.
First, the simple math involved would argue that criminals and the deranged would have MUCH more difficulty getting guns, just because the number on the available black market would be massively lower and the penalties for exchange providing far more risk. Second, since by definition law abiding people would have abided by the law, you wouldn't be making them criminals whatsoever. Only if they chose to become law breaking citizens would that be the case. Follow me here?

Well see that's exactly what I'm talking about. Those people who do nothing else but work and try live a good life would feel like they WERE upholding the law by not giving up their guns. I also don't think you have considered the logistical nightmare it would create. Let's go by your reasoning. A law is passed stating that everyone must surrender their guns. All law abiding citizens line up and hand them over. Well, it's obvious the criminals already possess firearms illegally and are not gonna line up and hand them over. So, overnight, you just disarmed everyone BUT the criminals.

I'll have to watch that link later as I have to go grocery shopping with the wifey bbiab

oh hell, Flip, I have long considered the whole confiscation idea both unworkable and flat-out wrong. Maybe for military level stuff, I could see it, but even then, the logistics would be near-impossible, so why bother?
The video link should be good for a cheap laugh. Sometimes a cheap laugh makes life way, way better, IMO.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Is this an example of how you will carry out problem solving in a calm rational way if we take your advice and respectfully come to share our concerns that your side is fomenting hateful propaganda about us?!?
You jump to join in topguns stupid hateful hyperbole and inflame the discourse like a trained agitator. Lol! Way to show your true colors and prove my point slick.

sarcasm equates to agitation? You seem a bit jumpy today.

You agreed with the hateful comment, portraying millions of gun owners all as loonies just like those commentators I had referenced earlier do. Then you offered your sarcasm. So your initial reaction to his comment was to agree with his sentiment. Saying something funny afterwards doesn't change that you showed your bigotry first.

It is sad that you think for millions of gun owners to be taken seriously we must all first disown any commentary you find to be too blusterous or confrontational if we are to earn an audience with your side of the debate yet you can gleefully perpetuate all the hateful rhetoric and sweeping stereotypes you want, the very core of my complaint, and if I call you out on it I'm over reacting!?!

You are conducting yourself as a narrow minded condescending elitist. Are you wearing a powdered wig and come from a long line of cousins married to cousins? I think we've fought this battle once before....

I've posted the data to support the following statement already so if you want to challenge it please do so with specific studies and references otherwise keep reading the whole thing and comment.

America isn't any more murderous than many similarly developed nations. We just do it with guns more often than many places because we can. For example, Russians use guns less often but use fists and clubs much more than we do. The net result is they kill as many or more than we do. Of course you can say "Americans have a much higher gun death ratio" but dead is dead!

I'm not saying we dont have a problem. Or even that we don't have a problem that guns are part of. But we don't have the problem that the mainstream media and political left claim we have.

1. We have a problem with guns being too carelessly stored so our crazy people can grab them when they decide they want to go out with a bang. The primary problem there isn't their hardware choice. That hardly has any bearing on the danger they pose or the frequency that they will strike or the helpless nature of their chosen victims. It is their desire to go out with a bang and their desire to create as much sensationalism around their act as possible. The incentives they have for being famous for losing control....finally everyone is going to feel their pain...or everyone is going to suffer for the pain they supposedly caused...etc. is the problem more so than the tool they choose to rack up the kills with. Again, dead is dead!

They are almost always intelligent and plan their attacks out in great detail. They aren't zombies that never would have killed if not for that rifle they stumbled upon while shuffling mindlessly around the town! Take away the gun and they will be molotav cocktail tossing mass murderers in no time flat! Lock up the gun in a cabinet they can't open...same result, burned children in the classroom. In fact, once the burned victims make the prime time cable shows the new weapon of choice will be gasoline even if you leave the guns out! The more horrific the scene the more attractive the idea will be to most of these deranged killers.

2. We also have a very serious problem with urban youth killing each other and sometimes spilling their crime out into the rest of the streets. 20 times more likely to kill is the result of a cultural failure not a hardware supply!! If you take the thug killers data out of the murder rate we probably score quite reasonable in world wide comparisons.
A hardware adjustment isn't going to slow them down! It never has, you have already tried it and failed! What does work is direct confrontation. New York City has made great strides toward solving the issue without needing any additional gun laws. In Chicago, where the sacred cow is allowed to walk the streets unmolested, the numbers are much worse. The gun supply to both cities is identical....

So I reject the premise of your suggestion that millions of law abiding gun owners must capitulate to your demands, stifle the angry fringe element within our masses and come with hat in hand to beg your cooperation. Piss off! You are a most disingenuous bunch of exploitative wannabe tyrants!
If you want your side of the debate to be taken seriously...if you really want to reduce the carnage.... address those two realities I layed out above and leave over a hundred million law abiding gun owners constitutional rights out of your political games!

Here's another one Slick. Let's say we ban the manufacture of AR-15's, grandfather all the the ones now in circulation and restrict the transfer of ownership of them in the future. How does that do anything for all the AR-15 that have underwent private sales since 1963 and are now far removed from the original registered owner? It doesn't. The conversation needs to change from banning to waiting periods and background checks. Here in Georgia, most schools already have an armed resource officer from the sheriff's department so that's a moot point, but I think the conversation would find alot more acceptance from both sides if it wasn't so threatening. There is no reason why a law abiding citizen should not retain the right to own an AR-15 if they so desire. The fact is the 2nd amendment was clearly put in place in the individuals Bill of Rights in the advent of a tyrannical government. Obviously that is not a threat now but in a 100 years who knows. There has to be a way we can go about protecting each other but it is not gonna be as simple-minded a solution as banning guns.

EDIT: I started laughing as soon as I read the caption: 6 reasons we should deport Piers Morgan

So we're taking the NRA's word that they got that 100k new members huh? If you already have guns, what would joining the NRA right this very second do for you? Absolutely nothing...so I call shenanigans on their "numbers".

CobGobbler wrote:So we're taking the NRA's word that they got that 100k new members huh? If you already have guns, what would joining the NRA right this very second do for you? Absolutely nothing...so I call shenanigans on their "numbers".

What it does is fund a lobbying machine that makes it difficult for the Congress to outlaw your guns and ammo and replacement parts and accessories and places to shoot. That is kind of helpful if you want to actually use them!
If you saw how many gun stores went suddenly out of stock of all sorts of targeted items you would think the 100,000 number is small!
I've been trying to find 300 AAC Blackout ammo for weeks now. Within the first week or so of the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting 30 round AR-15 magazines went from plentiful and $20 each to out of stock to appearing on ebay for a starting bid of $60 each and more...the price of a used AR-15 doubled overnight and then went to triple a few days later. Everytime Biden or Pelosi or Obama mutters something gun related the panic buying steps up a little more because we all know anything you have before the lock you get to keep.

I guess what the out of stock thing tells me is just how fucked we really are as a nation. You keep talking about how the reasonable gun owners aren't heard in all of this, but are the same people that rush out to buy all these extra rounds and ammo and are stockpiling an arsenal to fight off the gubmint troops supposed to be the reasonable gun owners? Because from my side, the reasonable ones look like the most paranoid of them all.

I love that your side acts like they're the victims in all of this. I'm sorry you can't find your ammo that has no other purpose than to kill other human beings. Maybe everyone will forget about 20 kids being killed in a few more weeks and the ammo will go back down to a reasonable price for you. You people are freaks.

The real freaks are those who use a tragedy to further a political agenda. If gun control was so dam important, why did they let the original assault weapons ban sunset out? Senator Feinstein had a gun control bill setting in her desk drawer for years...just waiting for the right tragedy I guess. How freaky is that?

Will Robinson wrote:.

1. We have a problem with guns being too carelessly stored so our crazy people can grab them when they decide they want to go out with a bang. The primary problem there isn't their hardware choice. That hardly has any bearing on the danger they pose or the frequency that they will strike or the helpless nature of their chosen victims. It is their desire to go out with a bang and their desire to create as much sensationalism around their act as possible. The incentives they have for being famous for losing control....finally everyone is going to feel their pain...or everyone is going to suffer for the pain they supposedly caused...etc. is the problem more so than the tool they choose to rack up the kills with. Again, dead is dead!

agreed. Completely, and this has been the most important point I've ever made on the subject. Further, I think this point is the one most Americans agree with as well.

2. We also have a very serious problem with urban youth killing each other and sometimes spilling their crime out into the rest of the streets. 20 times more likely to kill is the result of a cultural failure not a hardware supply!! If you take the thug killers data out of the murder rate we probably score quite reasonable in world wide comparisons.
A hardware adjustment isn't going to slow them down!

no, but addressing #1 will have a HUGE impact. And, part of NYC success is actually reduction in access.

woodchip wrote:The real freaks are those who use a tragedy to further a political agenda. If gun control was so dam important, why did they let the original assault weapons ban sunset out? Senator Feinstein had a gun control bill setting in her desk drawer for years...just waiting for the right tragedy I guess. How freaky is that?

it's called politics. The NRA was using their cash and political clout to kill any sensible legislation, because, most of the time, the vast bulk of the public didn't get involved. Now, they are, finally. Should this issue have been addressed far earlier? Sure. But, sometimes, public opinion, and thus politics, works in odd ways for odd reasons. Now that the NRA success rate is way down, the public outcry is more tangible and political money and muscle are being focused on the issue, things will change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/ke ... .html?_r=0

like I say, give me Wits over Weaponry any day........

Looks like they both failed in this case.

Nothing can protect you from someone pulling out a weapon and using it without any warning…nothing…not even your wits.

It is a bit ironic though.

Spidey wrote:Looks like they both failed in this case.

sort of true.....not using one leads to not knowing when to use the other.

Nothing can protect you from someone pulling out a weapon and using it without any warning…nothing…not even your wits.

sometimes true, but FAR more often, wits will tell you that something is amiss.

It is a bit ironic though.

that was sort of my whole point in posting it. I know that statistics have long shown gun owners as far more likely to die from gun violence than non-owners, but this one was just plain bizarre.

callmeslick wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/ke ... .html?_r=0

like I say, give me Wits over Weaponry any day........

Are you implying the guy was witless? I know that's the way you like to portray all gun owners, as a bunch of foolish people but I can assure you are wrong and even smart people can be murdered. Armed smart people too.
Your post tells us something but I don't think it says what you think it does.

callmeslick wrote:...
that was sort of my whole point in posting it. I know that statistics have long shown gun owners as far more likely to die from gun violence than non-owners, but this one was just plain bizarre.

That is a bull★■◆● stat.
Take out the gang bangers from that data and you see a much different result. Gang bangers are 20 times more likely to kill and be killed than the rest of us and they rack up the majority of gun violence in the data you are citing!
Only a fool would think all gun owners are in the same risk group by mere possession of a firearm. Only a simpleton or a liar would try to imply such a thing.
Gangbangers are more likely to die from a firearm because of their homicidal tendencies and their homicidal peer group/environment not because of the piece of hardware in their pocket.
A normal person, which, contrary to your bigoted rhetoric, most gun owners are, can have the same hardware with no more than average risk of dying from a gun wound.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/ke ... .html?_r=0

like I say, give me Wits over Weaponry any day........

Are you implying the guy was witless?

perhaps not witless, but clearly not as aware of his surroundings and circumstances as he ought to have been, in hindsight, wouldn't you agree?

Your post tells us something but I don't think it says what you think it does.

all it ought to tell you is that I have an eye for, and appreciation of, irony.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
that was sort of my whole point in posting it. I know that statistics have long shown gun owners as far more likely to die from gun violence than non-owners, but this one was just plain bizarre.

That is a **** stat.

no, it isn't. It has remained constant despite any ups and downs in gang violence.

Only a fool would think all gun owners are in the same risk group by mere possession of a firearm. Only a simpleton or a liar would try to imply such a thing.

or a life insurance company.

A normal person, which, contrary to your bigoted rhetoric, most gun owners are can have the same hardware with no more than average risk of dying from a gun wound.

sorry to upset you, but yes they do. It is proven, actuarial fact.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/ke ... .html?_r=0

like I say, give me Wits over Weaponry any day........

Are you implying the guy was witless?

perhaps not witless, but clearly not as aware of his surroundings and circumstances as he ought to have been, in hindsight, wouldn't you agree?

If your title to the post had been something like "You need more than a gun to stop a murderer..." then I would agree that you didn't imply he was witless...but your title choice indicates you had a different train of thought going.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
that was sort of my whole point in posting it. I know that statistics have long shown gun owners as far more likely to die from gun violence than non-owners, but this one was just plain bizarre.

That is a **** stat.

no, it isn't. It has remained constant despite any ups and downs in gang violence.

Only a fool would think all gun owners are in the same risk group by mere possession of a firearm. Only a simpleton or a liar would try to imply such a thing.

or a life insurance company.

A normal person, which, contrary to your bigoted rhetoric, most gun owners are can have the same hardware with no more than average risk of dying from a gun wound.

sorry to upset you, but yes they do. It is proven, actuarial fact.

You need to provide some respectable data to support your assertions. You have a record of spouting nonsense. By the way, the insurance industry is probably the worst offender of abusing statistics to justify raising rates. So get some data to back it up please. Start with the gang violence moving up/down not mirroring the overall gun owners death rate by gun since that is the main thrust of your claims. Don't forget to take out suicide from the data too. That is another trick you types like to put in there to create that which isn't really there.

ok, although my 'record of spouting nonsense' is, I suspect viewed through the lens of one who would prefer not to believe me....
http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does-ow ... e-answers/

now, before you cherry-pick, allow me a couple caveats. I would agree that the study of 'gun carriers' ought to, by simple logic, be skewed along the lines you suggest above. However, the statistics around guns in the home, deaths of children under 14, deaths of women and studies based on International data from Western nations cannot be seen as reflecting a damned thing to do with 'gangbangers'. Oh, and due to NRA pressures, insurers have never been allowed to charge gun owners more for health or life insurance. However, if you ask any actuarial accountant, they would love to, as they are well aware of the increased risk factors.

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.

Right NYC is having great success even with their stop and frisk.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2012060 ... z2GAMzKwLp

Heretic wrote:Right NYC is having great success even with their stop and frisk.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2012060 ... z2GAMzKwLp

It seems they are making a distinction without a difference as far as what has worked.

My take is they have made an effort to directly confront the people most likely to cause gun violence. If they were stopping too many people based just on age and race and now have adjusted their tactics, that doesn't change the fact that they were, and still are going directly to the source instead of following the example set by the city of Chicago sitting on their thumbs in press conferences and blaming people outside the city for their situation, like the NRA and the existence of gun rights of all Americans!

The crime reports tell us where the murders are concentrated and by who. If trying to target the ones who fit that profile is infringing on their civil rights, at least in a temporary fashion during the stop and frisk, thus we must stop that practice, why is the alternative solution to expand the infringement of civil rights to all Americans and on a much more permanent basis?!?

Will Robinson wrote: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!

callmeslick wrote:...

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.
...

No, facts don't lie. But saying one thing and then trying to prove it with the wrong fact is....well...

"Death is death" yes, absolutely. But risk is risk. You implied that there is an increased risk to gun owners to die from a gun by virtue of them simply owning or possessing the gun. Your 'facts' DO NOT support your assertion. Anyone at risk from suicide is at that risk, not because of the tools he owns, but because of another factor therefore they should be removed from what ever data you have of gun owners who did meet there death directly as a result of their owning the gun....accidental shooting...mugger takes gun and uses it on gun owner etc etc.

So laugh all you want but your claims are misleading at best and I think you know better so your motives are nothing you should be gleeful about.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/ke ... .html?_r=0

like I say, give me Wits over Weaponry any day........

Are you implying the guy was witless? I know that's the way you like to portray all gun owners, as a bunch of foolish people but I can assure you are wrong and even smart people can be murdered. Armed smart people too.
Your post tells us something but I don't think it says what you think it does.

Maybe the victim actually knew the person who shot him, wasn't expecting a confrontation and had his guard down? It might explain why he never reached for his gun in self defense.

Will Robinson wrote: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.

Just how foolish are you, Will? Of course the existence of a gun in a household increases the risk of someone having suicidal thoughts deciding to act on them, because it's the easiest goddamn way in the world to commit suicide. You have a weapon solely designed for the purpose of killing someone with a single trigger pull sitting around the house, and you're going to try and pretend that this doesn't make it far easier for someone to attempt suicide, and likewise for that attempt to be successful? It almost completely eliminates the possibility for a change of heart that lengthier and more involved methods provide, simply because of how fast and effective it is. So yeah, give me a break.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: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.

Just how foolish are you, Will? Of course the existence of a gun in a household increases the risk of someone having suicidal thoughts deciding to act on them, because it's the easiest ******* way in the world to commit suicide. You have a weapon solely designed for the purpose of killing someone with a single trigger pull sitting around the house, and you're going to try and pretend that this doesn't make it far easier for someone to attempt suicide, and likewise for that attempt to be successful? It almost completely eliminates the possibility for a change of heart that lengthier and more involved methods provide, simply because of how fast and effective it is. So yeah, give me a break.

A guy is driving across the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco, he is having an average day driving to work singing along to his favorite song on the radio. Halfway across the bridge, standing on the railing, is a man about to jump, tears rolling down his cheek overwhelmed with dark emotions, he is going to commit suicide.
Both men live on the same street a mile from the bridge, they both cross the bridge almost daily.

Fact: People who live near the Golden Gate Bridge are much more likely to jump off of it when they want to commit suicide compared to people who live far away from it.

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?

you don't see it, Will, but you are dancing. I stated the fact that owning a gun makes one more likely(quite a bit more likely) to die by gunshot. That fact is too well documented to be argued. So, what do you do? You come back with some sort of speculation about suicide being a component. Who cares? Dead is dead, as I said. The facts are that owning a gun makes a person more likely to die by the gun.

How about this project: go find me good, solid study data that shows that gun owners are less likely to be victims of gun crime than non-owners. Then, maybe you might have a piece of solid ground to base your speculation upon. Until then, I see nothing.......

callmeslick wrote:you don't see it, Will, but you are dancing. I stated the fact that owning a gun makes one more likely(quite a bit more likely) to die by gunshot. That fact is too well documented to be argued. So, what do you do? You come back with some sort of speculation about suicide being a component. Who cares? Dead is dead, as I said. The facts are that owning a gun makes a person more likely to die by the gun.

No, in the case of people who VOLUNTEER to kill themselves the gun does not "make them" MORE at risk to killing themselves. They have already made the ultimate commitment to put themselves into maximum risk condition! Whereas, the gun owner next door, who never chooses to kill himself, is at no more risk of suicide than a non-gun owner who doesn't choose to kill themselves.

Someone who is shot with their own gun by an otherwise unarmed intruder has increased the risk of their own death by possessing the gun....someone who accidentally discharges a firearm fatally wounding themselves has increased the risk of their own death by possessing the gun etc. etc.

The best you can honestly say is someone who owns a gun, and chooses to use it, IF they also decide to kill themselves, is more likely to succeed than if they chose to use a steak knife to the abdomen or a jump from a single story building.

You are the one who is 'dancing'....and it is getting uncomfortable to watch. I'll stop playing the music for you after this...

callmeslick wrote:How about this project: go find me good, solid study data that shows that gun owners are less likely to be victims of gun crime than non-owners. Then, maybe you might have a piece of solid ground to base your speculation upon. Until then, I see nothing.......

I never made such a claim why would I search for that proof. Now you are really flailing about trying move the goalposts....

Will Robinson wrote: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.

Top Gun wrote: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.

the sole purpose of a fire arm is not to kill other people.

here are just some of the uses of a firearm


Protecting your family in emergencies
Personal safety and self defense
Preventing and deterring crimes
Detaining criminals for arrest
Guarding our national borders
Preserving our interests abroad
Helping defend our allies
Overcoming tyranny
International trade
Emergency preparedness
Commerce and employment
Historical preservation and study
Obtaining food by hunting
Olympic competition
Collecting
Sporting pursuits
Target practice
Recreational shooting

About 50% of what you listed there involves shooting at another person, or at least presenting the threat of shooting at another person, and the rest are just ancillary. Historically speaking, the only reason anyone ever came up with the concept of packing gunpowder and a heavy projectile in a metal tube and lighting the fuse was to fire it at other people. Hell, even with a bow, you can argue that they were initially used equally for hunting, but that simply doesn't hold up for firearms. People may use firearms today for target practice, or may collect historical models of them, but you can't dance around the fundamental task they were designed to perform.