DescentBB

CUDA wrote: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.

Top Gun wrote:or at least presenting the threat of shooting at another person

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

Top Gun wrote:

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:

CUDA wrote: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.

Top Gun wrote: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!

CUDA wrote: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.

callmeslick wrote:

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!

Sergeant Thorne wrote: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.

woodchip wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: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.

woodschip wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: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.

Top Gun wrote: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.