Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[Tambora]

Sorry, up to now I thought you we're a man. Now it all makes sense. So... umm

Do you prefer make up or shoes?

ROFL!
A debater of points, you are not.
Why would it make any difference to the actual argument of better protection for women if I were male or female?
Answer ----- it doesn't.
Either the point is valid or it is not.
And it IS valid that a woman can better protect herself with a gun than she can with her fist.


Oh, and shoes!
But above that would be a caring husband that does all he can to make sure I am better protected right now this very minute and every minute.
Instead of just sitting around WISHING things were different.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your omission is proof of your hypocrisy.

Your question was poorly framed. You asked what I preferred. It is my preference to be neither punched nor shot. Punches can cause eye damage, ear damage, concussions, broken ribs, internal injuries, cuts and bruises and maybe even death. I'm not wild about any of those possible injuries. Guns can cause severe injuries that can leave my parallelized, with an ostomy, loss of limb, brain damage and may even leave me dead. My preference is to avoid any and all of those potential outcomes. How is that hypocritical?

 

[Tambora]

Neither, her mouth; they're deadly.

More deflection from a poor debater.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

ROFL!
A debater of points, you are not.
Why would it make any difference to the actual argument of better protection for women if I were male or female?
Answer ----- it doesn't.
Either the point is valid or it is not.
And it IS valid that a woman can better protect herself with a gun than she can with her fist.


Oh, and shoes!
But above that would be a caring husband that does all he can to make sure I am better protected right now this very minute and every minute.
Instead of just sitting around WISHING things were different.

Fortunately I live in a country where its leaders have continually reviewed and amended gun laws over its history rather than blindly keeping the same law made over 300 years ago and that is why I'm not living in fear of being shot while you are. Poor you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Fortunately I live in a country where its leaders have continually reviewed and amended gun laws over its history rather than blindly keeping the same law made over 300 years ago and that is why I'm not living in fear of being shot while you are. Poor you.

This may surprise you, but I am not living in fear of being shot. The thought never enters my mind while going about my day.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

One of the problem with a gun is that in the heat of a moment a person can grab one and do something that they never ever intended doing that ends with unintended consequences.

Yes that is true, and why are you arguing for both sides on this debate. Cheeky monkey.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes that is true, and why are you arguing for both sides on this debate. Cheeky monkey.

Because I understand the issue. I understand that people who own guns cover a wide spectrum. There are owners like me who keep their guns unloaded and locked up. We are not concerned about home break ins and just use our guns for sport. Then there are people who keep their guns loaded and easily at hand because they have reason to do so. I understand that there are problems with people who own guns that lead to tragedy. Would not having the gun have prevented the tragedy? Yes. Would properly storing your weapons unloaded and lock up have prevented the tragedy? Yes. Guns come with a high degree of responsibility and many people do not take those responsibilities seriously. I do not see that as a valid reason to deny gun ownership to people who do take their responsibilities seriously.

 

[The Barbarian]

Right. This is why I think that when gun advocates say that taking away guns will just lead to homicides by other means miss the point. Yes there will still be crime but guns make it so much easier to inflict damage. People can make a split decision with terrible consequences in ways that don't apply to other things.

In the article I posted earlier it talked about a road rage incident where both people were carrying guns and they killed each other. Guns can escalate so quickly.

I was NCOIC of an ER for a few years. The worst thing I ever saw was a man who had shot someone in the heat of an argument. He was almost catatonic with horror and grief, as he waited to know if he was a murderer or not.

A knife might have been just as effective. But it requires more volition than just pulling a trigger.

 

[steko]

Neither, her mouth; they're deadly.

Tambora is a volcano!

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Because I understand the issue. I understand that people who own guns cover a wide spectrum. There are owners like me who keep their guns unloaded and locked up. We are not concerned about home break ins and just use our guns for sport. Then there are people who keep their guns loaded and easily at hand because they have reason to do so. I understand that there are problems with people who own guns that lead to tragedy. Would not having the gun have prevented the tragedy? Yes. Would properly storing your weapons unloaded and lock up have prevented the tragedy? Yes. Guns come with a high degree of responsibility and many people do not take those responsibilities seriously. I do not see that as a valid reason to deny gun ownership to people who do take their responsibilities seriously.

And there in lays the problem and in a way the solution too.

Problem; even the most responsible person's gun can end up killing someone. Fact.

Solution; if it's only for sport then they should be kept at the range or only for those living in area's with wild animals like bears, heavily licenced of course - which would cost a lot of money.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Tambora is a volcano!

:nuke:

 

[Nihilo]

You'll have to prove your claim with stats.

I don't have to prove that correlation doesn't prove causation with stats. It doesn't. Ask any statistician.

 

[Nihilo]

Here are some I found that might help you.

In 2017 the US has 36 deaths per day because of guns:
https://twitter.com/GunDeaths/status...7Ctwgr^tweet

While in the UK during 2013 there were only 0.28: http://www.gunbabygun.com/many-peopl...data-examined/

US Pop. 323.1 million (2016) 5x the UK Pop. 64.13 million (2013)

Therefore 7.2 deaths per day compared to 0.28 per 64 million per day.

Or

36 deaths compared to 1.4 deaths per 323.1 million per day.

Murderers murder. More murderers = more murders.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I was NCOIC of an ER for a few years. The worst thing I ever saw was a man who had shot someone in the heat of an argument. He was almost catatonic with horror and grief, as he waited to know if he was a murderer or not.

A knife might have been just as effective. But it requires more volition than just pulling a trigger.

Yes, most pro-gunners don't know what it really feels like to shoot someone and how they would feel once their life changes because of the consequences. They don't think ahead. They don't think.

 

[Nihilo]

How did your family take it, when you told them that if their lives are ever in peril that you'll just sit on your hands?

I'm laughing so much at you.

It sounds like the wild west there.

But I suppose, if there's any truth in what you are portraying, then no wonder you would say such crazy things. :CRASH:

Non-responsive. You haven't told your family this at all, have you? They might be curious to know that. You should tell them.

 

[Nihilo]

Barely breaking the surface of the reasons many of these gun laws cannot be realistically enforced.

It would add a complication to a private sale to visit an FFL to run a criminal background check on the buyer when selling a gun privately, but it would introduce a criminal background check into the transaction. I'm not for registration in any case.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

​

Non-responsive. You haven't told your family this at all, have you? They might be curious to know that. You should tell them.

No, because they all died at a shoot out at the O.K. Corral.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And there in lays the problem and in a way the solution too.

Problem; even the most responsible person's gun can end up killing someone. Fact.

So can the butcher knife in the kitchen. So can the car in the garage. So can the matches in kitchen drawer. So can the pillow on the bed, the water in the bathtub and the trophy on the fireplace mantel. Fact.

Solution; if it's only for sport then they should be kept at the range or only for those living in area's with wild animals like bears, heavily licenced of course - which would cost a lot of money.

I disagree. I have to transport my guns with me when I go to shoots. Shoots happen all over the state so I cannot leave my guns locked up someplace. Same for hunters, they go many different places and need their guns.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, because they all died at a shoot out at the O.K. Corral.

Your statement about the results of the O.K. Coral shootout are wrong.

 

[Nihilo]

There is no question that the US has a extremely high homicide rate. The question is, is the homicide rate so high because of guns or because of people.

Murderers murder. More murderers = more murders.

I haven't confirmed the accuracy of this data, but there's obviously a big "hump" from the mid-1960s to the end of the 1990s, and recently we're back to the murder rate from 1950 to the mid-1960s.

I can say that the number of guns per capita in the US from 2000 to now has done nothing but increase. Now, there are about 100 civilian owned guns in the US per 100 people, and before President Obama's election, it was closer to 90 per 100, and back in 2000 I believe it was even less. So right here, in this chart, if the data is good, we can see zero correlation between more guns and more murders.

So you anti's should shut up, is my thought. :think: