[buffoon]

Originally Posted by valis

..........Point is, if someone wants to take out someone else, not a lot they are going to be able to do to stop it. There's a big story on ESPN right now about a 24 year old baseball player who was stabbed to death by his brother. His brother was broken in the head; I would imagine that most people who kill in anything but extreme self-preservation are just that; wrong in the head. They will take whatever it is they can find to get the task done................

aaahhhh......sanity, at last

The chances of somebody being stupid enough to come at me with a knife and the chances of my carrying, just be sheer coincidence, a grease gun at that very moment being so remote that I'll probably win the lottery jackpot first.

After which, statistically speaking, I'll probably have some idjit come at me with a knife.

Right after lightning strikes me.

Thrice.

edit: P.S. in a crashing plane

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by valis

I seem to recall that discussion.........

Yeah.

..........and it wasn't about gun control or the 2nd amendment, it was about the law.

.....and governed by application of logic.

[valis]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Yeah.

..........and it wasn't about gun control or the 2nd amendment, it was about the law.

.....and governed by application of logic.

Yup. Although I do believe logic is what brought that one to it's conclusion.

boring anecdote time; when I was a wee lad, my dad took me up into the hills on the back (west) side of Pikes Peak. Camped for a night, just getting me used to the great outdoors. Think I was 7 or so. Anyhow, we got a couple rabbits to cook, and danged if I didn't leave my grand-dad's knife up on rock in camp. It was September as well, so the odds of getting back there were slim before the snows came.

No worries. Went up next July, and guess what was sitting on the rock where we left it; and yes, I still have that knife.

Point is, it sat there through a standard Colorado winter, and not ONCE did it get off that rock and go on a stabbing spree. Not a single time.

A tool is a tool; it needs human input to even do what it was designed for. Doesn't matter if it is a gun, salad shooter, or water balloon launcher. No person to use it, it simply will not do anything.

You guys following my logic? That maybe people are the problem, and not the tools we use?

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by valis

...........Point is, it sat there through a standard Colorado winter, and not ONCE did it get off that rock and go on a stabbing spree. Not a single time....................

.....and it might have been in the home safe of a responsible gun owner. Or precluded from being handed out with the burgers (I love that anecdote of yours ) to just about anybody

Result would have been the same.

A tool is a tool; it needs human input to even do what it was designed for. Doesn't matter if it is a gun, salad shooter, or water balloon launcher. No person to use it, it simply will not do anything.

You guys following my logic? That maybe people are the problem, and not the tools we use?

Definitely.

Now to somewhat alter the saying; there exists not just the case of feeling to be a hammer and thus perceiving everything to be a nail. Like with obtaining a fast car and possibly having the need to drive recklessly, acquisition of a hammer can cause the urge to hit things. With most people not, I'm sure, but we've established that there are those where even a screw driver comes too late.

And to them everything is a target.

Not just the whackos like Breivik or the Aurora guy. Reading some of the arguments on here it sounds as if (some) otherwise "normal" citizens suffer the affliction, too. OK, it's mostly just talk and not walk but it also offers a certain element of risk.

Proffering that one would have opened up in Aurora on the shooter, with a cinema full of milling people, is enough reason to keep somebody away from guns for life. Probably from cinemas as well.

That's the trouble, most people (or so the Wyatt Earps on here give the impression) not having the sense of knowing when not to shoot. But when they don't (shoot) the prime reason being their shaking finger not being able to flick the safety.

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Forgot who said it but if it's not guns but people that kill people, why do we give guns to people when we send them to war and not just send people?

don't tempt me.. yes, send the humans that decided shredding up bodies was the best solution to the problem. throw them together sans guns (or food & water for that matter)! & leave the young boys & girls at home.

Ah know, ah know,,,,,,,,,,,cuz the other side don't play by the rules.

true. no way around that fact..
must you point that up?

Originally Posted by pyritechips

My point is that a society with much less gun content is far safer than a society with a high gun content.

this sounds reasonable & logical. let legitimate hunters, those who wish to protect their domicile, etc. have a gun. but can't there be some kind of restraint -- i.e. who genuinely needs an assault rifle? can't there be a limit to the number of guns owned per household..something along those lines.

aren't legitimately owned guns stolen & used for some of these shootings (columbine comes to mind, if that's correct)? so if the gun cabinet has 1 rifle instead of 50, that would translate to 49 less guns let loose. with 1 being used, & hopefully none of hypothetically stolen guns would be spraying bullets rapidly all over heck.

Originally Posted by valis

A tool is a tool; it needs human input to even do what it was designed for.

You guys following my logic? That maybe people are the problem, and not the tools we use?

not a boring anecdote, & you, & the decent concerned people here, i would trust owning a gun any day (or knife, or mallet.. but not a salad shooter . those are women's tools! (i'm kidding...!)

it is the whacko violent human that's going to misuse the tools, but what to do about them? i brought that up to poochee or wino or hood on another thread -- do you screen for untreated schizophrenia in young males? all the anger management education in the world likely won't matter in a domestic violence situation, or with the bloke who just lost his job, & believes he's got nothing left in life but a vendetta against society.

that's why i'm going with p-chips' logic on this one, reduce some of the guns at least. we practically throw them at people here in the states (referring to gun shows). those background checks can't amount to much if we're still getting these mass shootings as often as we are..

[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

You have taken my statement out of context to serve your own purpose and backed it up with a hypothetical scenario. You first conclusion is absurd.

Not as crazy as the idea that all guns could be removed and you said that the rights to own a gun would be over the value of a person which would be the right to life.

[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by valis

totally disagree with that. Totally. I see no correlation whatsoever between the right to own a gun and the right to life; none. I think you are comparing apples and nerf footballs there, truth told.

Yea, that has to be one of the more outlandish statements made on this forum.

[valis]

nobody said it was dumb, LF......all I stated was that I disagreed with it.........

IMO, you need to fix that post........and I'll even say please.

[Couriant]

What are the Nutters Running Amok complaining about now?