Killing your own food is a meaningful use. I still have hog in my freezer from my last hunt.
disregard my last post....just read your comment.
Yep, I've heard the rascal point of view before. It's not even whether or not the gun owner has a purpose. The point that's always brought up is the negative actions of firearms like suicide and mass killings. And I say those two because I don't think rascal is dumb enough to believe that a good chunk of people accidentally kill themselves with their own handgun. To the very very very small minority who that dubious distinction belongs to, they would have been "Darwin awarded" by something else anyway. The thinking behind that argument is that guns are the reason behind the suicides or mass killings. IMO, the reason someone commits suicide has been determined way before the trigger is pulled; just so happens that the gun is there and is efficient. But if it wasn't there, they would just jump off a cliff or whatever else they could think of. Same with the mass shootings. When someone is bent on destruction, they'll find a way and usually they order the firearms, ammunition, etc AFTER they've pre-determined their plan. After the fact, people are always going to go "hurrr durrr gun owners, CIS white males, Trump=Hitler, I'm a f@ggot, etc" when in reality these guys were going to carry it out no matter what. See the Nice, France incident. There's no doubt guns are more efficient, but the whole gun debate and deciding what should be sold on the market is a different argument. But rascal's notion of "I'm scared because the chance of me shooting myself or someone else is too high
yeah, to be clear, i never said people dont have the right to have these guns, so i dont know why the "there's no second amendment right far cars" shtick has come up
Fair enough.
It's DMC's generic reply when he hasn't actually read anything you posted.
There are also a number of cars that aren't street legal. That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about average people buying readily available firearms, not get into a legalistic argument about the 2A.
These rice burners with fart mufflers are the car equivalent of AR-15s.
Your logic is dumb. No reason for me to be standing outside during a storm. Lots of reasons to have to be driving during rush hour, like going back and forth from work.
yeah if my AR15 could drive me to work everyday back and forth, Id own 2
the silly arguments gun toddlers make
No it isn't. It is to justify the blood thirsty thrill of the hunt to kill something.
Sure you do. The leader of the cold dead hands crew showed up to the party.
these same "intellectuals" will always talk about how dumb the other side is (I assume Spurminator is liberal).Those big stupidhead Trump, orangeman guise
But whenever you form a coherent argument against them, they'll bow out and play the "lol trolled!!!1" card. they're used to dealing with TheGreatYacht types tbh
Considering suicide in your stats is intellectually dishonest - especially when you use those stats to show how owning a gun is detrimental. If I shoot myself intentionally, I accomplished my immediate goal. I could have used pills or a host of other methods like putting a belt on a door knob and going out like Robin Williams.
If I accidentally shoot myself, I am doing the world a favor by either getting rid of an idiot who was reckless with a gun or at least avoiding shooting someone else accidentally.
If someone else accidentally shoots me with my own gun, somewhere along the way I was careless enough to allow them to handle it without showing clear.
If someone else intentionally shoots me with my own gun, I would probably be a cop. I'm sure you think it's ok for cops to have guns.
Either way, the purpose of my gun is, to me, as important as the purpose of your car, to you. The difference is I have a 2A right to own mine. So to the supreme court and the cons ution, it's even more important than you car.
If I had no control over my own actions, if I was just a bot in the scheme and the odds played out like a roulette wheel, then Rascal would have a point. However, I have control over the mitigating cir stances surrounding accidental discharge, suicide and the like. So that control is the buffer that creates the completely different reality than what Rascal is preaching. Basically, we aren't 340 million average Americans. We are 340 million unique Americans who you can find a few metrics for, average them and then using a flawed approach, apply the average to the individual.Yep, I've heard the rascal point of view before. It's not even whether or not the gun owner has a purpose. The point that's always brought up is the negative actions of firearms like suicide and mass killings. And I say those two because I don't think rascal is dumb enough to believe that a good chunk of people accidentally kill themselves with their own handgun. To the very very very small minority who that dubious distinction belongs to, they would have been "Darwin awarded" by something else anyway. The thinking behind that argument is that guns are the reason behind the suicides or mass killings. IMO, the reason someone commits suicide has been determined way before the trigger is pulled; just so happens that the gun is there and is efficient. But if it wasn't there, they would just jump off a cliff or whatever else they could think of. Same with the mass shootings. When someone is bent on destruction, they'll find a way and usually they order the firearms, ammunition, etc AFTER they've pre-determined their plan. After the fact, people are always going to go "hurrr durrr gun owners, CIS white males, Trump=Hitler, I'm a f@ggot, etc" when in reality these guys were going to carry it out no matter what. See the Nice, France incident. There's no doubt guns are more efficient, but the whole gun debate and deciding what should be sold on the market is a different argument. But rascal's notion of "
Imagine a room half full of tall people and half full of kids. The average size for shoes would be somewhere in the middle, so to tell an individual in the room that the odds are they wear that averaged size is faulty since it fits no one in that room. In reality, no one in the room could wear the average size.
Nobody is arguing that there aren’t responsible gun owners. Nobody is arguing that you can reduce the rate of accidental deaths by being a responsible gun owner.
The argument needs to be around ensuring irresponsible gun owners don’t have access to guns. This is where your interpretation of the 2nd gets in the way of public safety. SCOTUS has already ruled limits on gun ownership are cons utional. The debate now is simply where those limits are set. You clumsily fall back on the “shall not be infringed”, “cold dead hands arguments” while being seemingly incapable of understanding the complexity of the issue.
The argument is that I have a fixed probability of being killed by my own gun based on the averaged data. If I can "reduce the rate of accidental deaths..." by my own action, then that's a faulty argument. That's in my control. What someone else decides to do so that I might one day need a gun for self defense, that's not in my control. I've always preached here about doing what's in my control to do. Liberals often rest on "ought" but the world doesn't work on that principle. It's only a talking point. I instead rest on "is". What is is what I prep for, not what ought to be.
It's not my interpretation but the courts'.The argument needs to be around ensuring irresponsible gun owners don’t have access to guns. This is where your interpretation of the 2nd gets in the way of public safety.You're arguing against a whole other discussion. This one is about whether or not I am more likely to be killed by my own gun than use it for self defense. My argument is that you cannot consider individual examples based on probability generated from an entire nation.SCOTUS has already ruled limits on gun ownership are cons utional. The debate now is simply where those limits are set. You clumsily fall back on the “shall not be infringed”, “cold dead hands arguments” while being seemingly incapable of understanding the complexity of the issue.
Everyone is a responsible gun owner until the accident happens.
States with higher rates of gun ownership have higher suicide rates than states with low gun ownership, whereas non–firearm suicide rates are comparable, indicating that firearm access drives overall suicide rates.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
