Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 3

5864 posts

Flag Post

Are you seriously trying to help your argument with those definitions? None of them have any other use than “shooting living beings”.

 
Flag Post

Are you seriously trying to help your argument with those definitions? None of them have any other use than “shooting living beings”.

I think you need to read them again. Anyway, a definition is not going to give you all the uses of something. A key is a device that unlocks doors. It can also be used as a weapon, but you won’t find that anywhere in its definition.

 
Flag Post

I think you need to read them again.

Give me any of those definitions and point out where it doesn’t say you’re going to hurt someone? “Combat”, “fighting” and “defence” are all concepts referring to the eventual act of hurting someone.

Anyway, a definition is not going to give you all the uses of something. A key is a device that unlocks doors. It can also be used as a weapon, but you won’t find that anywhere in its definition.

A definition is going to give you the uses that it’s used for. If it’s used for something else very rarely, it doesn’t have to be included. A key is rarely used as a weapon, a weapon is rarely used as a key, therefore you don’t include those uses in the definitions.

 
Flag Post

No, they’re designed to be weapons.

Uh… yeah. That’s precisely what I was talking about…

Their purpose is to kill.

A key is a device that unlocks doors. It can also be used as a weapon, but you won’t find that anywhere in its definition.

The difference is in the intended purpose of a key. Keys are not designed to be weapons.

 
Flag Post

Give me any of those definitions and point out where it doesn’t say you’re going to hurt someone? “Combat”, “fighting” and “defence” are all concepts referring to the eventual act of hurting someone.

“a means of persuading or arguing”

“A weapon is a tool used to apply or threaten to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack, self-defense, or defense in combat.”

“an instrument or other means of harming or exerting control over another

“anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.”

“A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.”

A key is rarely used as a weapon, a weapon is rarely used as a key, therefore you don’t include those uses in the definitions.

Exactly.

Uh… yeah. That’s precisely what I was talking about…
Their purpose is to kill.

I think you need to read the definitions again as well.

 
Flag Post

So you’re defending firearms because, in addition to killing people, they can also be used to threaten to kill people?

I honestly don’t see how that’s significantly better.

 
Flag Post

So you’re defending firearms because, in addition to killing people, they can also be used to threaten to kill people?

No, I’m saying that they were not simply designed only to kill. I’m defending them because there isn’t any reason to believe that banning guns outright will definitely result in less violence.

 
Flag Post

“a means of persuading or arguing”

I needed a laugh. Thanks.

<rest>

As was said, threats are not a positive addition to the uses of a weapon.

No, I’m saying that they were not simply designed only to kill. I’m defending them because there isn’t any reason to believe that banning guns outright will definitely result in less violence.

Does it matter? If the primary uses of a weapon are killing and threatening, then why would you want to allow them even if there’s zero effect on the number of killings and threats?

 
Flag Post

I needed a laugh. Thanks.

I’m glad you find gun violence funny.

As was said, threats are not a positive addition to the uses of a weapon.

I’m sorry, I thought I was responding to “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it doesn’t say you’re going to hurt someone?” not “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it says there is a use that I will deem positive.”

Does it matter? If the primary uses of a weapon are killing and threatening, then why would you want to allow them even if there’s zero effect on the number of killings and threats?

Because there’s zero effect on violence and no reason not to allow them?

 
Flag Post

I’m glad you find gun violence funny.

I don’t think you understand what “conversational” means.

I’m sorry, I thought I was responding to “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it doesn’t say you’re going to hurt someone?” not “Give me any of those definitions and point out where it says there is a use that I will deem positive.”

We’re not arguing semantics.

Because there’s zero effect on violence and no reason not to allow them?

Except that there isn’t zero effect on violence, and the only reason one would have one is for violence.

 
Flag Post

as the topic starter pointed out, not every gun-owner is going to use his guns to make other people or animals feel miserable. some gun owners just like to go to the shooting range with it and shoot paper targets.
the problem is that most guns are used to hurt and kill people and animals. that is why, in my view, the heavier weapons should be banned under all conditions. you won’t be needing a bazooka or a minigun on a shooting range. a small rifle would also do. also, light weapons are a lot less lethal then the heavy kind, so even if a crazy person would get on one of those in his hands, he would not be able to cause as much damage as he could with a heavy machine gun. an other good idea would be a gun-owners license which proofs you are qualified and in the right mental condition to own a gun.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think you understand what “conversational” means.

I don’t see the relevance.

We’re not arguing semantics.

It’s not semantics. You told me to find one thing and then after I did you said “well that’s not some other thing.”

Except that there isn’t zero effect on violence

Prove this, first of all. Second, you said if there wasn’t, why would… So I answered, using your hypothetical situation in which we know for a fact there is no effect.

 
Flag Post

This again? Sheez, this topic has been raging on ever since Obama’s election.
Here you go people, a video for your troubles( ABC News & CNN)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWajf5RkDJ8

 
Flag Post

I don’t see the relevance.

Weapon isn’t used in the literal sense there. It’s not the weapon we’re talking about.

It’s not semantics. You told me to find one thing and then after I did you said “well that’s not some other thing.”

Perhaps I made my question unclear, but you clearly know what we’re arguing about. It’s common sense if we’re talking about the good side of weapons in definitions, you’re not going to come up with “threatening”.

Prove this, first of all.

I took a quick glance through the statistics on gun-related deaths and gun ownership. They’re correlated very well. The less guns people can carry, the less deaths will actually occur with guns.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by burningcheez:

So you’re defending firearms because, in addition to killing people, they can also be used to threaten to kill people?

No, I’m saying that they were not simply designed only to kill. I’m defending them because there isn’t any reason to believe that banning guns outright will definitely result in less violence.

It won’t end violence. It will reduce gun violence. Which is one of the most deadly kinds of violence.

 
Flag Post

I still find it interesting that most of the people on here, arguing for and against firearms, know little to nothing about them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

I still find it interesting that most of the people on here, arguing for and against firearms, know little to nothing about them.

Oh just let them argue. Guns are guns,and will always will be.

 
Flag Post

I still find it interesting that most of the people on here, arguing for and against firearms, know little to nothing about them.

Aren’t firearms those things that taste sweet when you put them in your coffee?

Oh, wait, you meant firearms.

What seems to be poorly understood according to you?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

I still find it interesting that most of the people on here, arguing for and against firearms, know little to nothing about them.

I’m sure knowing the kind of bullet that was used in some WW1-era gun is the expert opinion we need about guns.
 
Flag Post

It just proves how easily swayed you are by the anti-gun hype. If any of you knew anything about guns, their types, uses, and the laws applied to them you’d realize the demonization and lies being told by the anti-gun crowd getting their brainwashed victims to display exactly the knee-jerk reaction shown here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

It just proves how easily swayed you are by the anti-gun hype. If any of you knew anything about guns, their types, uses, and the laws applied to them you’d realize the demonization and lies being told by the anti-gun crowd getting their brainwashed victims to display exactly the knee-jerk reaction shown here.

I know the types. There’s some for killing things up close, and there’s some for killing things from far away.

 
Flag Post

Sadly the NRA is one of the most powerful groups in America. I am still waiting for someone to post proof that Obama actually is going to try to outlaw guns, so far from what I have seen no one has been able to do that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

It just proves how easily swayed you are by the anti-gun hype. If any of you knew anything about guns, their types, uses, and the laws applied to them you’d realize the demonization and lies being told by the anti-gun crowd getting their brainwashed victims to display exactly the knee-jerk reaction shown here.

Translation – “Well the other side is beating our argument to shreds so lets whine and make ad hominem attacks.”

 
Flag Post

If you don’t want a gun, don’t get one. But don’t tell me that I’m a criminal or encouraging criminal behavior by saturating my community with weapons that never leave my possession. That’s just foolish reasoning. So far your only arguments are that guns kill. No kidding really? But by comparison far more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than guns. And more cops are killed by their own guns that they can’t hold on to than by a criminal’s gun. So if you’re really worried about death, you’re focusing on the wrong thing. But to get back to the main point I’ve made numerous times and that noone’s addressed is that there will always be death and violence. I prefer to be armed.

 
Flag Post

If you don’t want a gun, don’t get one.

You can use this logic for abortion, but not for guns. Guns can and will be used against you.

But by comparison far more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than guns.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce death by making guns illegal.

But to get back to the main point I’ve made numerous times and that noone’s addressed is that there will always be death and violence.

You don’t want death and violence to be reduced?