Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

USA DUI Deaths (and how they relate to other things)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It's stupid to think that people would accept having their cars limited to 85 mph. The only thing deeper than the gun culture in this country is the car culture. But, since you brought up restrictions instead of banning, why can't we apply that to guns as well? Wouldn't restricting assault rifles to 22 caliber and 10 rounds allow people to still own the firearm, just at a limited ability? 

Quit saying that guns are manufactured to kill. You of all people should know this. There are tons of people that shoot guns for sport that never kill an animal (or a person) The gun debate is due to the killing of people. Not animals. So when you look at deaths caused by both guns and alcohol, it is a valid comparison. How do you explain the ban on lawn darts? Were they manufactured to kill things?

We live in a free country. Owning a 100 of anything is part of that freedom as long is it doesn't hurt others around us. When things go wrong, guns, alcohol, cars, lawn darts can all hurt others. 

Why is it stupid?  How many people do you know that would care if their vehicle was limited to 85 mph?  I'm all for some kind of restrictions on guns but we've seen that shot down by gun advocates numerous times.  I'd rather there not be any bans to be honest but I know something needs to be done.  It would be nice if both sides could work towards something instead of thinking it's all or nothing.

I will not quit because being an outdoors person and gun owner I have a full understanding of why guns were created and what they are meant to do.  Just because we don't always use them for that reason doesn't mean that's not why they were created.  I use my .22 for for shooting targets but the reason I bought it was for killing small animals around my house.  I use my shotgun for shooting clay pigeons but the reason I got one was for shooting larger animals.  The only weapon I have that I don't really use for killing animals is my bow which I pretty much only use at the archery.  I'm not sure where lawn darts fit into this conversation.

You're right, we do live in a free country but we all know our freedoms are limited and come with consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Quit saying that guns are manufactured to kill.

Guns are manufactured to tear through skin, muscle and organs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious how many people would care about guns if there were no firearm deaths? 

So, the only reason they want change is because of the number of innocent people that die each day due to guns. 

There are also deaths of innocent people each day that are caused by alcohol. 

Many have said that guns have no purpose other than to kill. Ignoring all the other uses. Those same people ignore the fact that alcohol has no purpose other than to alter your mental state. 

Both can cause deaths when used improperly used. 

This is why, in my opinion, they are very similar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KCitons said:

Curious how many people would care about guns if there were no firearm deaths? 

So, the only reason they want change is because of the number of innocent people that die each day due to guns. 

There are also deaths of innocent people each day that are caused by alcohol. 

Many have said that guns have no purpose other than to kill. Ignoring all the other uses. Those same people ignore the fact that alcohol has no purpose other than to alter your mental state. 

Both can cause deaths when used improperly used. 

This is why, in my opinion, they are very similar.

 

My biggest concern is with mass shootings.  All the other deaths from shootings I have always felt are more of a result from human nature and our freedom to own guns.  It's one of the negative results from being free.  There are always going to be murders, accidents, suicides and self protection deaths whether there are guns or not. Those gun deaths are not much different than other deaths and I consider them to be a little more of a part of life.  When it comes to mass shootings nothing else really compares to it and I can't stand seeing the stupid comparisons that get brought up.

I know mental health is a huge part of it, I think everyone agrees on that, but that's not enough.  Something is going to have to happen with gun regulation in order to help with mass shootings.  I don't see any other way around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KCitons said:

Curious how many people would care about guns if there were no firearm deaths? 

So, the only reason they want change is because of the number of innocent people that die each day due to guns. 

There are also deaths of innocent people each day that are caused by alcohol. 

Many have said that guns have no purpose other than to kill. Ignoring all the other uses. Those same people ignore the fact that alcohol has no purpose other than to alter your mental state. 

Both can cause deaths when used improperly used. 

This is why, in my opinion, they are very similar.

 

People don't deliberately use alcohol to kill people. They are not remotely similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

People don't deliberately use alcohol to kill people. They are not remotely similar.

People didnt deliberately use lawn darts to kill people either. But those were banned. So, your point is not valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

"Proper" use of a gun results in a fatality. Proper use of alcohol results in getting awesome.

This might be the worst comment on this board.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Self-awareness clearly not a strength here.

Thanks Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KCitons said:

People didnt deliberately use lawn darts to kill people either. But those were banned. So, your point is not valid.

The banning of lawn darts didn't result in a massive black market of lawn dart production and consumption... like banning alcohol did. 

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 11:30 AM, KCitons said:

Quit saying that guns are manufactured to kill. You of all people should know this. There are tons of people that shoot guns for sport that never kill an animal (or a person)

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.

When guns are used for other things like sport, it's a secondary purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.

When guns are used for other things like sport, it's a secondary purpose. 

The primary purpose is based on intent. Even if you look at guns that are purchased to kill animals (not humans) it's for a net positive. (controlling animal populations, raising money for other outdoor programs). 

If the primary purpose is to kill people, then we should have a 100x more firearm deaths. 

Things change all the time. Gasoline is a good example. It was created before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Gasoline was a worthless byproduct of creating kerosene. 

Based on the number of guns purchased for the sole purpose of sport shooting, I would say that the primary purpose is not to kill. But rather, to send a projectile downfield at a target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KCitons said:

The primary purpose is based on intent. Even if you look at guns that are purchased to kill animals (not humans) it's for a net positive. (controlling animal populations, raising money for other outdoor programs). 

If the primary purpose is to kill people, then we should have a 100x more firearm deaths. 

Things change all the time. Gasoline is a good example. It was created before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Gasoline was a worthless byproduct of creating kerosene. 

Based on the number of guns purchased for the sole purpose of sport shooting, I would say that the primary purpose is not to kill. But rather, to send a projectile downfield at a target. 

The bolded is like saying if the primary purpose of fire extinguishers is to put out fires, then we should have a 100x more fires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

The bolded is like saying if the primary purpose of fire extinguishers is to put out fires, then we should have a 100x more fires. 

Is this really a statement you want to stand behind?

A fire extinguisher is the opposite of a fire. It's not responsible for starting the fires. It's primary purpose is to put them out. 

By your own statement, you said the primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. With the number of firearms in this country, that means there should be many, many more shootings. As it is, millions of rounds are sent down range without the intent to kill. I would bet that more rounds are fired at inanimate objects or animals each year than are fired at humans. 

You seem firm in your stance that a guns primary purpose is to kill something. When you remove animals from that something and add in sport shooting, you are left with a very small number of people being killed by firearms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Is this really a statement you want to stand behind?

A fire extinguisher is the opposite of a fire. It's not responsible for starting the fires. It's primary purpose is to put them out. 

By your own statement, you said the primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. With the number of firearms in this country, that means there should be many, many more shootings. As it is, millions of rounds are sent down range without the intent to kill. I would bet that more rounds are fired at inanimate objects or animals each year than are fired at humans. 

You seem firm in your stance that a guns primary purpose is to kill something. When you remove animals from that something and add in sport shooting, you are left with a very small number of people being killed by firearms. 

Our country has 3.5 times as much gun violence as other developed countries. How much more do you need to recognize we are already experiencing exactly that which you say we should be experiencing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Our country has 3.5 times as much gun violence as other developed countries. How much more do you need to recognize we are already experiencing exactly that which you say we should be experiencing?

Link?  I'd like to know if they are including suicides and gang violence. Two things I believe should be thrown out of any stats.

How many more guns do we have vs other developed countries?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Link?  I'd like to know if they are including suicides and gang violence. Two things I believe should be thrown out of any stats.

How many more guns do we have vs other developed countries?

 

From: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

Quote

The IHME also estimates what it would expect a country's rate of gun violence deaths to be based solely on its socioeconomic status. By that measure, the U.S. should only be seeing .79 deaths per 100,000 people — almost five times less than its actual rate of 3.85 deaths per 100,000.

Sorry, it's five times, not 3.5 times. I was confused by the 3.85 number... which is the number of deaths per 100,000 in the US. 

And why the hell would you ignore suicides? 

This is anecdotal in regards to the thread, but just tonight my wife got a call from our manager (we own a restaurant). Her son works for us and is one of our best employees. We also recently just hired the older brother of his best friend. The two brothers were frequently at our managers house, and their mom is apparently a horrible mom. So our manager was basically the mom they never had, and she considers them to be her boys too.

The younger brother (the best friend of our manager's son) just shot and killed himself today. Apparently his issues with his mom were too much, and she kept an unsecured gun in the house. So he had no problem accessing it and doing it. 

So while I know I'm emotional about this right now, I don't care. This is directed right at you for even suggesting ignoring gun suicides in our gun violence problem: :middle finger:

After mass shooting, gun suicides are the next most preventable gun violence problem we suffer from.

Edit: the board software replaced the middle finger icon with a smiley. I replaced it with text. 

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

From: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

Sorry, it's five times, not 3.5 times. I was confused by the 3.85 number... which is the number of deaths per 100,000 in the US. 

And why the hell would you ignore suicides? 

This is anecdotal in regards to the thread, but just tonight my wife got a call from our manager (we own a restaurant). Her son works for us and is one of our best employees. We also recently just hired the older brother of his best friend. The two brothers were frequently at our managers house, and their mom is apparently a horrible mom. So our manager was basically the mom they never had, and she considers them to be her boys too.

The younger brother (the best friend of our manager's son) just shot and killed himself today. Apparently his issues with his mom were too much, and she kept an unsecured gun in the house. So he had no problem accessing it and doing it. 

So while I know I'm emotional about this right now, I don't care. This is directed right at you for even suggesting ignoring gun suicides in our gun violence problem: :middle finger:

After mass shooting, gun suicides are the next most preventable gun violence problem we suffer from.

Edit: the board software replaced the middle finger icon with a smiley. I replaced it with text. 

For what it's worth, I'm sorry for your loss. I know you may not want to hear that from me right now. I accept your middle finger and will table our discussion for another time. 

Also of note, my wife's brother shot himself 22 years ago this October. One of the bridesmaids in our wedding killed herself about 10 years ago. (didn't use a gun)  My sister tried to overdose when she was 17. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring suicides is absurd. The reason guns are such an issue is their ease, convenience and lethality. How quickly and effectively it can all happen is the point. Suicide is often a very impulsive act, so it couldn't be more relevant.

Quote

My sister tried to overdose when she was 17. 

That would have been "killed herself" rather than "tried to overdose" had she used a gun. As I have mentioned here before, my brother tried to kill himself with a gun when he was in his 20s and there was some kind of problem with the gun that prohibited him from succeeding. He decided the next day that he had to get rid of it or he was going to die. He lived for another 30+ years before finally killing himself a couple years ago by other means. That 30+ years was a lifetime that we would not have had with him had the gun operated as expected.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple Jack said:

Ignoring suicides is absurd. The reason guns are such an issue is their ease, convenience and lethality. How quickly and effectively it can all happen is the point. Suicide is often a very impulsive act, so it couldn't be more relevant.

That would have been "killed herself" rather than "tried to overdose" had she used a gun. As I have mentioned here before, my brother tried to kill himself with a gun when he was in his 20s and there was some kind of problem with the gun that prohibited him from succeeding. He decided the next day that he had to get rid of it or he was going to die. He lived for another 30+ years before finally killing himself a couple years ago by other means. That 30+ years was a lifetime that we would not have had with him had the gun operated as expected.

We discussed this in the other thread. When it comes to abortion and the woman having absolute say over her body, so does a person that wishes to commit suicide.  Having a quick and lethal method is not the argument against. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

We discussed this in the other thread. When it comes to abortion and the woman having absolute say over her body, so does a person that wishes to commit suicide.  Having a quick and lethal method is not the argument against. 

It is a gun purposely used to end a life. It is statistically relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

It is a gun purposely used to end a life. It is statistically relevant.

Not if you put it under the category of gun violence. 

You also stated a guns purpose is to end life. But, doesn't take into account the number of guns that are bought with the intent on never shooting an animal or a person. Instead they are used for sporting purposes. If you look a the 3 ways that guns could be used, it's either violence, hunting, or sport shooting. You choose to lump every gun into the first category. When in reality, it accounts for the smallest percentage of use of the three. 

How it's actually being used defines it's purpose. Regardless of initial purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, KCitons said:

People didnt deliberately use lawn darts to kill people either. But those were banned. So, your point is not valid.

I still have two sets of jarts.  the one set my uncle grinded the tips to be sharper because his backyard was clay and they had trouble sticking in the ground.  We break them out every picnic...need to watch your feet though because they will break the skin.

Edited by Da Guru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

I still have two sets of jarts.  the one set my uncle grinded the tips to be sharper because his backyard was clay and they had trouble sticking in the ground.  We break them out every picnic...need to watch your feet though because they will break the skin.

"Law abiding" jarts owner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

I still have two sets of jarts.  the one set my uncle grinded the tips to be sharper because his backyard was clay and they had trouble sticking in the ground.  We break them out every picnic...need to watch your feet though because they will break the skin.

Careful, some people here will ask for you to be banned from posting for posting about criminal actions.;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Not if you put it under the category of gun violence. 

You also stated a guns purpose is to end life. But, doesn't take into account the number of guns that are bought with the intent on never shooting an animal or a person. Instead they are used for sporting purposes. If you look a the 3 ways that guns could be used, it's either violence, hunting, or sport shooting. You choose to lump every gun into the first category. When in reality, it accounts for the smallest percentage of use of the three. 

How it's actually being used defines it's purpose. Regardless of initial purpose. 

I don't think that's very accurate.

Let's say a person buys a shotgun for shooting clay pigeons.  He no other intention to use it for anything else, not even shooting animals.  One day he finds out his wife is cheating on him.  He grabs his shotgun, finds the guy she's having an affair with and shoots him.  He then goes home to shoot his wife and them himself.  It doesn't really matter that his intent when he purchased it was for only shooting clay pigeons because he eventually used to to kill, which is what the original intent of the creation for that gun was for.  Maybe my example isn't all that great either but it's what your post made me think of.

This argument does nothing but waste time and clutter up things.  It's not helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't think that's very accurate.

Let's say a person buys a shotgun for shooting clay pigeons.  He no other intention to use it for anything else, not even shooting animals.  One day he finds out his wife is cheating on him.  He grabs his shotgun, finds the guy she's having an affair with and shoots him.  He then goes home to shoot his wife and them himself.  It doesn't really matter that his intent when he purchased it was for only shooting clay pigeons because he eventually used to to kill, which is what the original intent of the creation for that gun was for.  Maybe my example isn't all that great either but it's what your post made me think of.

This argument does nothing but waste time and clutter up things.  It's not helpful.

Let's use your example. But, let's ban all guns. The guy is still angry and wants to kill his wife. Maybe he uses a knife to kill her. The primary purpose of a knife is to cut things. One of those things is flesh (usually animal flesh). But, now it's used to cut human flesh and take a life. The knife wasn't purchased with the intent of cutting human flesh, but because it has now become a major cause of deaths (again, guns are banned), do we now call for tougher regulation (or a ban) on knives?  Ultimately, you can ban everything. The root problem remains that they guy can't cope with his wife cheating on him and resorts to violence. Cane killed Abel with a stone because he couldn't deal with the jealousy. Eventually we'll have to ban sticks and stones.  

I mentioned the original use of gasoline. It was thrown out as a byproduct of making kerosene. I guess we should continue that practice. 

The simplest question for you (as a gun owner) did you buy your guns to shoot people? I was told that alcohol (drunk driving) is not the same as guns because of the intent. A drunk driver doesn't intend to kill someone by driving drunk. A gun owner doesn't intend to shoot another person when they buy their hunting rifle. When things go wrong, they can both lead to loss of life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Let's use your example. But, let's ban all guns. The guy is still angry and wants to kill his wife. Maybe he uses a knife to kill her. The primary purpose of a knife is to cut things. One of those things is flesh (usually animal flesh). But, now it's used to cut human flesh and take a life. The knife wasn't purchased with the intent of cutting human flesh, but because it has now become a major cause of deaths (again, guns are banned), do we now call for tougher regulation (or a ban) on knives?  Ultimately, you can ban everything. The root problem remains that they guy can't cope with his wife cheating on him and resorts to violence. Cane killed Abel with a stone because he couldn't deal with the jealousy. Eventually we'll have to ban sticks and stones.  

I mentioned the original use of gasoline. It was thrown out as a byproduct of making kerosene. I guess we should continue that practice. 

The simplest question for you (as a gun owner) did you buy your guns to shoot people? I was told that alcohol (drunk driving) is not the same as guns because of the intent. A drunk driver doesn't intend to kill someone by driving drunk. A gun owner doesn't intend to shoot another person when they buy their hunting rifle. When things go wrong, they can both lead to loss of life. 

I can see this will never end so I'm going to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I can see this will never end so I'm going to move on.

Of course. You and Politician Spock. You want to have a discussion, but only a one sided discussion. 
 

Are you afraid to answer the question of why you bought your guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Of course. You and Politician Spock. You want to have a discussion, but only a one sided discussion. 
 

Are you afraid to answer the question of why you bought your guns?

Not afraid at all.  I bought my guns to kill animals, because they were created to kill.  I have used them to shoot targets and clay pigeons as well but I bought them for killing.  I also like to know I have them if I need to protect my family in my home in which case I may have to shoot another person.  I hope it never, ever comes to that though.

You keep skirting around facts and therefore it's pointless to continue.  If facts make something one sided then I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Not afraid at all.  I bought my guns to kill animals, because they were created to kill.  I have used them to shoot targets and clay pigeons as well but I bought them for killing.  I also like to know I have them if I need to protect my family in my home in which case I may have to shoot another person.  I hope it never, ever comes to that though.

You keep skirting around facts and therefore it's pointless to continue.  If facts make something one sided then I apologize.

You just gave the facts. Nobody is asking for stricter gun regulations due to animals dying. You just stated that you bought your guns to kill animals. You also said that you use them to shoot targets. Then as a last (and most unlikely use) you have them to protect your family, in your home. How many rounds have you fired through all of your guns at animals or targets? How many have you fired at people? Just because something can be used to kill another person, doesn't mean that's its sole purpose or even the intent. You own more than one gun. Does that mean all of your guns are for protecting your family? Or just one. Does that exclude the others from this conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

You just gave the facts. Nobody is asking for stricter gun regulations due to animals dying. You just stated that you bought your guns to kill animals. You also said that you use them to shoot targets. Then as a last (and most unlikely use) you have them to protect your family, in your home. How many rounds have you fired through all of your guns at animals or targets? How many have you fired at people? Just because something can be used to kill another person, doesn't mean that's its sole purpose or even the intent. You own more than one gun. Does that mean all of your guns are for protecting your family? Or just one. Does that exclude the others from this conversation?

I'm tired of repeating myself, aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm tired of repeating myself, aren't you?

Not really. If I think the topic is important enough I will continue to repeat the statement. Isn't that what the anti gun side is doing?

Sounds like you want me to choose between shutting up or defending your side. That's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Not really. If I think the topic is important enough I will continue to repeat the statement. Isn't that what the anti gun side is doing?

Sounds like you want me to choose between shutting up or defending your side. That's not going to happen.

Do you even know what my side is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Do you even know what my side is?

Yeah. A little to the left of my side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KCitons said:

Not if you put it under the category of gun violence. 

You also stated a guns purpose is to end life. But, doesn't take into account the number of guns that are bought with the intent on never shooting an animal or a person. Instead they are used for sporting purposes. If you look a the 3 ways that guns could be used, it's either violence, hunting, or sport shooting. You choose to lump every gun into the first category. When in reality, it accounts for the smallest percentage of use of the three. 

How it's actually being used defines it's purpose. Regardless of initial purpose. 

This means the purpose of fire extinguishers is wall art, and not a fire fighting tool... which is ridiculous logic.

The purpose of guns is to kill.... even if it's never used to kill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 10:57 AM, Zow said:

I could see a liability issue as well.  Ignition interlock devices are not perfect. They also tend to cause some internal computer issues with some cars.  Also, they aren't compatible with all vehicles (e.g. classic cars, many motorcycles, etc.).  Further, there could issues arise that it would slow a car from being driven in an emergency situation. 

 

They're also very expensive for the user.  The government would essentially be requiring everybody to spent an additional $100 plus per month just to drive/own a vehicle. 

If the law required them in every car then the all of the issues would be worked out.  No one said there could not be an emergency override that is logged and reviewed for why the safety system was bypassed.

Why do you think this would have to be subscription based?  The logic and system would be part of the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

This means the purpose of fire extinguishers is wall art, and not a fire fighting tool... which is ridiculous logic.

The purpose of guns is to kill.... even if it's never used to kill. 

Then I dont own that many guns. Their just safe art. Since they sit in my safe 90% of the time. 

When you look at use, a fire extinguisher sits on the wall until it's used to put out a fire. Hence its purpose. Many guns sit around until they are used to send a projectile down range. Only a very small percent of those projectiles are fired at a human. A very large percent of fire extinguishers are used to put out fires. Hence the primary purpose is defined by actual use. A car can be misused and result in death. But, that's not its primary purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Then I dont own that many guns. Their just safe art. Since they sit in my safe 90% of the time. 

When you look at use, a fire extinguisher sits on the wall until it's used to put out a fire. Hence its purpose. Many guns sit around until they are used to send a projectile down range. Only a very small percent of those projectiles are fired at a human. A very large percent of fire extinguishers are used to put out fires. Hence the primary purpose is defined by actual use. A car can be misused and result in death. But, that's not its primary purpose.

Could be used to bash things like a window or someone's skull.  Doesn't change the fact that it was made to put out fires, just like a gun is made to kill.  I'm not sure how this can be skirted around anymore than it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Then I dont own that many guns. Their just safe art. Since they sit in my safe 90% of the time. 

It's your logic we are using here. Does it sound as silly to you as it does to me?

20 minutes ago, KCitons said:

When you look at use, a fire extinguisher sits on the wall until it's used to put out a fire. Hence its purpose. Many guns sit around until they are used to send a projectile down range. Only a very small percent of those projectiles are fired at a human. A very large percent of fire extinguishers are used to put out fires. Hence the primary purpose is defined by actual use. A car can be misused and result in death. But, that's not its primary purpose.

There is an estimated 393,000,000 guns in the US. 40,000 gun deaths in the US in 2017. And approximately 100,000,000 animals are killed by hunters each year.  That's an average of 0.255 kills per year per gun.

There are 128,000,000 households in the US. Every household should have a fire extinguisher. But I estimate for everyone that doesn't have one, there is a household with 2 or more. So I'm estimateing 128,000,000 fire extinguishers exist in homes. Businesses also have fire extinguishers. I'm guessing there is probably one for every 10 workers. There are 153,000,000 people employed in the US, so that would be an additional 15,300,000 fire extinguishers. There's probably even more given churches and such have them too. But lets just go with 143,300,000 fire extinguishers.  355,400 fires occur each year. That's 0.002 fires per fire extinguishers.

0.255 is 127 times more than 0.002.

That means is a gun is used to kill 127 times more than a fire extinguisher is used to put out a fire.

This another one of your rabbit holes. I experience no joy in pointing out the absurdity of them. In fact, it feels like a burden. So the next time you go down a rabbit hole and I (and others) refuse to follow you down it, it's not us "losing traction" or not have a good response. It's simply us having tired from the ridiculous claims being made. 

Edited by Politician Spock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This should end this dumb discussion.

Why were guns created?  To kill.  That's all.

It won't. I wish it would. But it won't. He may let it rest for a while. but he always resurrects it again in the future. Always!

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Could be used to bash things like a window or someone's skull.  Doesn't change the fact that it was made to put out fires, just like a gun is made to kill.  I'm not sure how this can be skirted around anymore than it has.

But your guns were purchased for hunting and target shooting. A very small reason was for home protection. And in all this time, you've never used them to protect yourself, or your family from an intruder. But, you have used them to hunt and target shoot. You would never use all of your guns at the same time to protect your house, so truth is you have one gun for home protection. The rest are for hunting. That's their primary purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

It's your logic we are using here. Does it sound as silly to you as it does to me?

There is an estimated 393,000,000 guns in the US. 40,000 gun deaths in the US in 2017. And approximately 100,000,000 animals are killed by hunters each year.  That's an average of 0.255 kills per year per gun.

There are 128,000,000 households in the US. Every household should have a fire extinguisher. But I estimate for everyone that doesn't have one, there is a household with 2 or more. So I'm estimateing 128,000,000 fire extinguishers exist in homes. Businesses also have fire extinguishers. I'm guessing there is probably one for every 10 workers. There are 153,000,000 people employed in the US, so that would be an additional 15,300,000 fire extinguishers. There's probably even more given churches and such have them too. But lets just go with 143,300,000 fire extinguishers.  355,400 fires occur each year. That's 0.002 fires per fire extinguishers.

0.255 is 127 times more than 0.002.

That means is a gun is used to kill 127 times more than a fire extinguisher is used to put out a fire.

This another one of your rabbit holes. I experience no joy in pointing out the absurdity of them. In fact, it feels like a burden. So the next time you go down a rabbit hole and I (and others) refuse to follow you down it, it's not us "losing traction" or not have a good response. It's simply us having tired from the ridiculous claims being made. 

Not sure what your point is. You were the one that said the purpose of fire extinguishers was not to put out fires. 

You're stuck on the purpose of guns being to kill people. If you remove the animals that are killed by firearms, then you'r left with a tiny number. Your own math has proved my point.

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KCitons said:

Not sure what your point is. You were the one that said the purpose of fire extinguishers was not to put out fires. 

I said using your logic that if the purpose of guns is not to kill, then the purpose of fire extinguishers is not to put out fires. 

I'll note for future reference that you don't grasp examples of how your logic is wrong. 

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

You're stuck on the purpose of guns being to kill people. If you remove the animals that are killed by firearms, then you'r left with a tiny number. Your own math has proved my point.

Thanks,

I don't recall anyone claiming that the purpose of guns is to kill people.

If that's what you've been arguing against this whole time, then you've been arguing against your own false assumption. 

The claim, that is indisputable, despite your many attempts to dispute it, is "the purpose of guns is to kill."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

I said using your logic that if the purpose of guns is not to kill, then the purpose of fire extinguishers is not to put out fires. 

I'll note for future reference that you don't grasp examples of how your logic is wrong. 

I don't recall anyone claiming that the purpose of guns is to kill people.

If that's what you've been arguing against this whole time, then you've been arguing against your own false assumption. 

The claim, that is indisputable, despite your many attempts to dispute it, is "the purpose of guns is to kill."

There is an active anti gun poster in the other thread that has posted that guns were created to kill people. I've pointed this out a few times, it is not to kill people. Usually to kill animals. And often times to shoot inanimate objects.

So, yes. That's what I have been arguing this whole time. Why the gun was purchased, and how the gun is used, defines it's purpose. The stats you sited showed that there were 40k firearm deaths and 100 million animals harvests. What would you say is the primary purpose of guns? To hunt (and kill) animals, or to kill people?

It's to hunt animals (or sport shooting) and why I think that's the primary purpose. I also think it's important to consider that purpose when we discuss bans or regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

There is an active anti gun poster in the other thread that has posted that guns were created to kill people. I've pointed this out a few times, it is not to kill people. Usually to kill animals. And often times to shoot inanimate objects.

So, yes. That's what I have been arguing this whole time. Why the gun was purchased, and how the gun is used, defines it's purpose. The stats you sited showed that there were 40k firearm deaths and 100 million animals harvests. What would you say is the primary purpose of guns? To hunt (and kill) animals, or to kill people?

It's to hunt animals (or sport shooting) and why I think that's the primary purpose. I also think it's important to consider that purpose when we discuss bans or regulations.

The primary purpose of guns is to kill.

People are animals. There is nothing in a gun's design to differentiate between different types of animals. A gun will kill people just as effectively as it will kill any other animal similar to a human's size. Differentiating between different types of animals doesn't change the guns purpose at all, which again is to kill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

The primary purpose of guns is to kill.

People are animals. There is nothing in a gun's design to differentiate between different types of animals. A gun will kill people just as effectively as it will kill any other animal similar to a human's size. Differentiating between different types of animals doesn't change the guns purpose at all, which again is to kill. 

Do you eat people? 

Enough said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.