Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
except if I break into your house and steal a knife and kill someone with it - then you wouldn't be a fault at all would you ? or a ball bat, or if I stole the car in your garage and ran someone over, wouldn't be your fault either .... would it ?
So you want to pick and choose where personal responsibilities and actions allowances apply. Interesting how that works for the things you want.
No.
I can not even begin to explain how wrong this statement is. It’s staggeringly wrong in fact.
I’ve almost gone in a couple times to edit my post saying “I hope you’re joking but if not...” but I’ve also thought that about some of Stealthy’s posts too in the past only to be proven wrong so I’m gonna stand pat for now.
Which question? Why there aren’t laws requiring safe storage of bats? If there were, a law abiding citizen should follow them. But there aren’t, since they aren’t an inherently dangerous object designed for the sole purpose of killing things.
Let's extremely conservatively estimate 10 billion rounds fired last year. 40,000 deaths. That's a .0004 percent effectiveness rate. Pretty shoddy design work.
Anti gun crowd needs to use suicide numbers as part of total gun deaths and the strict definition that guns are created to kill in order to further their agenda. Removing suicides from the totals, makes the problem much smaller than it really is. And recognizing hunting or sport shooting as primary purpose, and not killing humans, removes the the positive use of guns in society.
At one time there were 60,000 nuclear warheads in existence in the world.
Unfortunately my reluctance to add the assumption of joking to my post fell true again. Just unreal.
I am not even sure how strongly he feels about the personal responsibility part given his comments about how he shouldn't be responsible if he leaves his guns lying about.
I could be wrong, but I think you were going far enough to say that you shouldn't be responsible if you left your gun in your parked car and somebody took it.
Again as it’s been a long time since I wondered in here and engaged. I am not anti-gun and am not trying to get rid of them. I fall somewhere in the middle of this debate. But to be delusional of the facts behind the design and intent of the gun (speaking to them as whole not a very small specific subsets of them) is just purposely being obtuse. And for further clarification I didn’t speak of a gun “problems” or the “positive effects”, just the intended design.
What percentage of nuclear warheads are used for anything other than killing a large amount of people? I've hunted my whole life and never seen someone kill a deer with a nuke.
Depends how many rounds were fired at targets, which is really just practice for killing things.
Come on man. Slow down and read what I wrote for a minute. Let me help you...
This pretty much sums things up. It's obvious that fish doesn't see any other purpose for guns other than killing things. I've shot dozens of guns over the past 4 decades. Many of which have never been used to hunt with. I've also shot friends firearms with no possibility that I will ever shoot them at anything other than a target. And then there are the dozen or so guns that I shot at the range. I believe Tim mentioned that he shot some guns at a range once. Was he practicing to kill things?
That's why I asked for clarification.
I knew a guy in college who could kill with the "pull my finger" prank.But, but.. what about paint guns, and glue guns, and squirt guns!!
Who cares? That has absolutely nothing to do with my point. You can't change the definition of what something was designed and built to do just because it not always used for that intent.
Seemed simple enough question to me.
Actually, my favorite analogy is alcohol/dui's. I was told that intent was very important when it comes to determining how something is used. Since a person goes to a bar and drinks, their sole intent is to just get home safely. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen and innocent people die. Why is this intent any different from the millions of guns that are purchased with the sole intent of hunting/sport shooting/home defense? The intent was to use those in a benign manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen and innocent people die.
That all may be true but again not my point. I'm speaking to the design and intent of the GUN not the gun owner. And again I'm speaking about the GUN as a whole not the specific small subsets of guns designed for other purposes, like the paint gun for example.
If there was a law in place that I would be liable for not securing my knife, I would secure my knife as a law abiding citizen. However, there is no such law. There are such laws with guns and cars. I do not leave my car running and unlocked, because it is illegal. When I owned a shotgun, I used a trigger lock and kept it in a safe, because guns are inherently dangerous and it is irresponsible not to secure them. When my daughter was born, I gifted the shotgun to a friend, since I did not want a gun in the house with my child, since that's stupid and negligent.
This is why the conversation is stagnant. If you know that a vast majority of guns in this country are never used to harm another person, but want to regulation in order to protect people, then you're not regulating effectively.
That's one side of it.
KCitons- I'm really trying here man but you don't seem to be reading what I've written. I've answered both of those questions, the first one multiple times, in just the last few exchanges with you. I feel like Steathy has hijacked your account......
Dunno. As weird as I find that argument, I still think it's more defensible than SC's stance that guns are no more dangerous than baseball bats and knives.
I'm reading what you've written. Apparently I'm not understanding it as you are writing it. I can ask questions to try to clarify your point of view, so I understand. Or, I can assume what you are saying. Which would you prefer? There are two parts to communication. If the message is not being received, it's not correct to assume that it's the receivers fault.
That a nuts perspective too for sure but I gave up arguing that with him months ago.
Sure, of course. But I don’t know how much more clear I can be.
So your question is should I have liability for not securing a knife when there is no law requiring me to secure my knife? The answer is yes, if that rises to the level of criminal negligence.
