Forum Thread

Guns: who owns them, who does what with them, and what should be done about them)

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 18 of 18 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The comparative was not about numbers but that the practice of government over regulating is not the answer, guns, hammers, cars, sticks, bricks, etc, are all nothing more than tools, you name the instrument and I'll bet that it was used to either kill someone or seriously injure them.granted a gun makes it some what easier to kill or maim someone, but the absence of it will not diminish the need to or want to kill, just makes it a more difficult.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The comparative was not about numbers but that the practice of government over regulating is not the answer, guns, hammers, cars, sticks, bricks, etc, are all nothing more than tools, you name the instrument and I'll bet that it was used to either kill someone or seriously injure them.granted a gun makes it some what easier to kill or maim someone, but the absence of it will not diminish the need to or want to kill, just makes it a more difficult.

    Re-read the posts, it's about the numbers. It tries to draws "patterns" and "statistical significance" and then argues that because the numbers are close to equal that they have comparative "carnage" levels. One of the post is 80% stats and numbers.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right, that we don't look at the numbers and we just look at the 'regulations' and how it is just a "tool." The arguments still make ZERO logical sense.

    You can't look at a gun as 'tool' that is on the same level as a hammer, a car, or a brick. When a hammer, a car, or a brick, is being properly used, or used as intended, things aren't being destroyed. (Yes, you can use a hammer as intended and destroy a door frame or something, but that is usually because you are repairing or rebuilding something.) But a gun is specifically designed to destroy. If you are properly using a gun, something is getting destroyed whether it's a target, and animal, a part of a person, or a random spot where a stray bullet landed.

    To scale up your comparison, a missile is just a tool, it can only hurt people if it is being misused and or someone intentionally tries to blow up people. Just like a hammer is a tool, it can hurt people only if people if misused or intentional used that way. Sure, missiles make it easier to kill people, but preventing people from owning missiles doesn't diminish their need or want to kill.

    I'm not saying you're wrong about your overall point. More regulations might not be the answer, but the argument you are using to make that point is awful.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: The comparative was not about numbers but that the practice of government over regulating is not the answer, guns, hammers, cars, sticks, bricks, etc, are all nothing more than tools, you name the instrument and I'll bet that it was used to either kill someone or seriously injure them.granted a gun makes it some what easier to kill or maim someone, but the absence of it will not diminish the need to or want to kill, just makes it a more difficult.

    Re-read the posts, it's about the numbers. It tries to draws "patterns" and "statistical significance" and then argues that because the numbers are close to equal that they have comparative "carnage" levels. One of the post is 80% stats and numbers.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right, that we don't look at the numbers and we just look at the 'regulations' and how it is just a "tool." The arguments still make ZERO logical sense.

    You can't look at a gun as 'tool' that is on the same level as a hammer, a car, or a brick. When a hammer, a car, or a brick, is being properly used, or used as intended, things aren't being destroyed. (Yes, you can use a hammer as intended and destroy a door frame or something, but that is usually because you are repairing or rebuilding something.) But a gun is specifically designed to destroy. If you are properly using a gun, something is getting destroyed whether it's a target, and animal, a part of a person, or a random spot where a stray bullet landed.

    To scale up your comparison, a missile is just a tool, it can only hurt people if it is being misused and or someone intentionally tries to blow up people. Just like a hammer is a tool, it can hurt people only if people if misused or intentional used that way. Sure, missiles make it easier to kill people, but preventing people from owning missiles doesn't diminish their need or want to kill.

    I'm not saying you're wrong about your overall point. More regulations might not be the answer, but the argument you are using to make that point is awful.

    I look on as the other objects that I mentioned as it relates to killing and maiming, not to their particular uses, my point remains the same, over regulating does not make that item safer nor the user less inclined to use it in a unlawful manner. My reply was in response to a post that claimed that if the gun was unavailable then the murder (s) would not have occurred.