Ohio school gunman kills self, wounds 4

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the primary purpose of a gun is to provide protection...

How's a gun providing protection? What characteristic of the gun makes it protective?

you're a burglar. would you break into a house where you know the owner is a gunowner?

you're a carjacker. you see some petite woman getting into her car and she has a gun on her hip. would you try to carjack her?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

actually, your inability to answer that question proves mine. proof of protection - game - set - match.

Actually no. I didn't think that I have to spell out the obvious for you.

Need an answer?

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

There. Happy?

Have you driven your gun to work lately?

have you gone hunting with your car?

Obviously not. A car is not made for that purpose.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

I am not the one spinning anything. I asked a question and you answered. The answer you gave underlined the point I was making all along. You just further illustrated my point trying to refute it. You just said again that the gun is there to protect but could not make that point w/o referring to the primary prpose of a gun (to do harm) from which the former is merely derived.

Basic rule when you're trying to get out of the hole: Stop digging.

et, you've missed the major point on that. it's a deterrent to those who would do you harm. and yes, people do know if you have one in your neighborhood, word does get around.

At least answer my question:

Could you do a Virginia Tech with a car, hammer or a nail gun?

With the same degree of 'success'?

actually, yes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am not the one spinning anything. I asked a question and you answered. The answer you gave underlined the point I was making all along. You just further illustrated my point trying to refute it. You just said again that the gun is there to protect but could not make that point w/o referring to the primary prpose of a gun (to do harm) from which the former is merely derived.

Basic rule when you're trying to get out of the hole: Stop digging.

et, you've missed the major point on that. it's a deterrent to those who would do you harm. and yes, people do know if you have one in your neighborhood, word does get around.

Well, if that theory was valid, then one would think that the US would have one of the lowest crimes rates in the world. Only it doesn't. In fact, compared to other industrialized nations, it has one of the - if not the - highest. So, something doesn't add up.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

the primary purpose of a gun is to provide protection...

How's a gun providing protection? What characteristic of the gun makes it protective?

you're a burglar. would you break into a house where you know the owner is a gunowner?

you're a carjacker. you see some petite woman getting into her car and she has a gun on her hip. would you try to carjack her?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

actually, your inability to answer that question proves mine. proof of protection - game - set - match.

Actually no. I didn't think that I have to spell out the obvious for you.

Need an answer?

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

There. Happy?

see, it proves that you'd think twice about trying something like that with someone who is armed. proof of protection.

Have you driven your gun to work lately?

have you gone hunting with your car?

Obviously not. A car is not made for that purpose.

tell that to some people i know in arkansas........

edited cause i put the end quote in the wrong place.

Edited October 12, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[natty bumppo 297]

yes ... I can visit Hokie Honda or Lowes first .... then wait for the right moment ... it's easy ... just use your imagintion

Really... Someone could use any other 'tool' to commit a rampage murder spree - and kill 30+ people all before the cops show up?

Yup. That smells like horse$hit to me.

That and this whole line of argument equating guns to cars to hammers stinks of grotesque relativism. How a person can pretend to have an intelligent argument by being plainly stupid.

suggest research the news ... story about a person(s) driving through a crowd .. etc ... etc ...

guess by the comment this means that cars and hammers have never been used to kill people.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the primary purpose of a gun is to provide protection...

How's a gun providing protection? What characteristic of the gun makes it protective?

you're a burglar. would you break into a house where you know the owner is a gunowner?

you're a carjacker. you see some petite woman getting into her car and she has a gun on her hip. would you try to carjack her?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

actually, your inability to answer that question proves mine. proof of protection - game - set - match.

Actually no. I didn't think that I have to spell out the obvious for you.

Need an answer?

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

There. Happy?

see, it proves that you'd think twice about trying something like that with someone who is armed. proof of protection.

So, you only read the first two letters of my answer.

ETA: I never argued that people do not consider their guns a protective device but it can be considered and serves as such only as a derivative of it's primary purpose which is to inflict bodily harm. Without that primary purpose, the gun wouldn't serve well as a protective device. Not more so than a rock.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

I am not the one spinning anything. I asked a question and you answered. The answer you gave underlined the point I was making all along. You just further illustrated my point trying to refute it. You just said again that the gun is there to protect but could not make that point w/o referring to the primary prpose of a gun (to do harm) from which the former is merely derived.

Basic rule when you're trying to get out of the hole: Stop digging.

et, you've missed the major point on that. it's a deterrent to those who would do you harm. and yes, people do know if you have one in your neighborhood, word does get around.

Well, if that theory was valid, then one would think that the US would have one of the lowest crimes rates in the world. Only it doesn't. In fact, compared to other industrialized nations, it has one of the - if not the - highest. So, something doesn't add up.

you'll also find that many of those crimes may well be committed in a state with strict licensing requirements which disarms the law abiding. look at texas - remember luby's? not happened in the state since has it? cch was passed and highly unlikely we'd see such a scene again.

[eric&gen 0]

Simple plan is to shut down gun stores so no one can buy guns anymore.

[natty bumppo 297]

Gun locks. Make a gun owner criminally liable in situations where gross negligence can be proven.

oh ..

I lock a gun and its used to kill someone ...

I lock a car and it's used to kill someone ...

this means in either example ... the owner is liable.

In practice that's not the case really is it.

If someone steals my unsecured gun and it gets used to commit a crime I could be held legally accountable, depending on the laws of my state.

I don't believe the same holds true if someone steals my car and does likewise.

why not the same for you car too ? after all ... a crime is a crime and you are the owner of the tool used.

[natty bumppo 297]

the primary purpose of a gun is to provide protection...

How's a gun providing protection? What characteristic of the gun makes it protective?

you're a burglar. would you break into a house where you know the owner is a gunowner?

you're a carjacker. you see some petite woman getting into her car and she has a gun on her hip. would you try to carjack her?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

actually, your inability to answer that question proves mine. proof of protection - game - set - match.

Actually no. I didn't think that I have to spell out the obvious for you.

Need an answer?

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

There. Happy?

Have you driven your gun to work lately?

have you gone hunting with your car?

Obviously not. A car is not made for that purpose.

oh ... never hit a deer ... then wondered who got the meat ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes ... I can visit Hokie Honda or Lowes first .... then wait for the right moment ... it's easy ... just use your imagintion

Really... Someone could use any other 'tool' to commit a rampage murder spree - and kill 30+ people all before the cops show up?

Yup. That smells like horse$hit to me.

That and this whole line of argument equating guns to cars to hammers stinks of grotesque relativism. How a person can pretend to have an intelligent argument by being plainly stupid.

suggest research the news ... story about a person(s) driving through a crowd .. etc ... etc ...

guess by the comment this means that cars and hammers have never been used to kill people.

Guess by your comment that you must be the queen of 2+2 = 101. Good luck with that.

Cars and hammers etc have been used to kill sure, but a gun is rather more efficient.

After all, its rather difficult to drive a car through a university dorm, and chasing people down to smash their skulls with a hammer is quite a bit of legwork, especially when you're after double-digits.

Gun locks. Make a gun owner criminally liable in situations where gross negligence can be proven.

oh ..

I lock a gun and its used to kill someone ...

I lock a car and it's used to kill someone ...

this means in either example ... the owner is liable.

In practice that's not the case really is it.

If someone steals my unsecured gun and it gets used to commit a crime I could be held legally accountable, depending on the laws of my state.

I don't believe the same holds true if someone steals my car and does likewise.

why not the same for you car too ? after all ... a crime is a crime and you are the owner of the tool used.

I dunno - perhaps you should ask the people writing the laws. They see the distinction even if you don't.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

the primary purpose of a gun is to provide protection...

How's a gun providing protection? What characteristic of the gun makes it protective?

you're a burglar. would you break into a house where you know the owner is a gunowner?

you're a carjacker. you see some petite woman getting into her car and she has a gun on her hip. would you try to carjack her?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

actually, your inability to answer that question proves mine. proof of protection - game - set - match.

Actually no. I didn't think that I have to spell out the obvious for you.

Need an answer?

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

There. Happy?

see, it proves that you'd think twice about trying something like that with someone who is armed. proof of protection.

So, you only read the first two letters of my answer.

ETA: I never argued that people do not consider their guns a protective device but it can be considered and serves as such only as a derivative of it's primary purpose which is to inflict bodily harm. Without that primary purpose, the gun wouldn't serve well as a protective device. Not more so than a rock.

can't see the forst for the trees? very few criminals would dare take on an armed citizen. so we can split hairs about this all day - that the gun in on the person and isn't used hardly equates to inflicting bodily harm. it's a deterrent in this case. if used by a criminal to rob or kill someone, then yes your inflicting of bodily harm would apply.

Simple plan is to shut down gun stores so no one can buy guns anymore.

thanks einstein

[natty bumppo 297]

the primary purpose of a gun is to provide protection...

How's a gun providing protection? What characteristic of the gun makes it protective?

you're a burglar. would you break into a house where you know the owner is a gunowner?

you're a carjacker. you see some petite woman getting into her car and she has a gun on her hip. would you try to carjack her?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

actually, your inability to answer that question proves mine. proof of protection - game - set - match.

Actually no. I didn't think that I have to spell out the obvious for you.

Need an answer?

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

There. Happy?

see, it proves that you'd think twice about trying something like that with someone who is armed. proof of protection.

So, you only read the first two letters of my answer.

ETA: I never argued that people do not consider their guns a protective device but it can be considered and serves as such only as a derivative of it's primary purpose which is to inflict bodily harm. Without that primary purpose, the gun wouldn't serve well as a protective device. Not more so than a rock.

actully if you spend time to think a little ...

try target shooting sometime ... or loading your own ... or BP ... muzzle load or BPCR ... trap .. skeet …

these take no effort or concentration ? you need to get out more.

think outside the box and more into mathematics/ physics /QA ... repeatibility

sorry ... the gameboy isn't the same ...

Edited October 12, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the primary purpose of a gun is to provide protection...

How's a gun providing protection? What characteristic of the gun makes it protective?

you're a burglar. would you break into a house where you know the owner is a gunowner?

you're a carjacker. you see some petite woman getting into her car and she has a gun on her hip. would you try to carjack her?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

actually, your inability to answer that question proves mine. proof of protection - game - set - match.

Actually no. I didn't think that I have to spell out the obvious for you.

Need an answer?

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

No, because the gun is a device specifically designed to and capable of inflicting fatal harm on me.

There. Happy?

see, it proves that you'd think twice about trying something like that with someone who is armed. proof of protection.

So, you only read the first two letters of my answer.

ETA: I never argued that people do not consider their guns a protective device but it can be considered and serves as such only as a derivative of it's primary purpose which is to inflict bodily harm. Without that primary purpose, the gun wouldn't serve well as a protective device. Not more so than a rock.

actully if you spend time to think a little ...

try target shooting sometime ... or loading your own ... or BP ... muzzle load or BPCR ... trap .. skeet …

these take no effort or concentration ? you need to get out more.

think outside the box and more into mathematics/ physics

sorry ... the gameboy isn't the same ...

No shite, Sherlock. If you must know, I've worn a uniform in my younger years and thus carried and fired a gun. The good ole' AK-47 no less.

[natty bumppo 297]

yes ... I can visit Hokie Honda or Lowes first .... then wait for the right moment ... it's easy ... just use your imagintion

Really... Someone could use any other 'tool' to commit a rampage murder spree - and kill 30+ people all before the cops show up?

Yup. That smells like horse$hit to me.

That and this whole line of argument equating guns to cars to hammers stinks of grotesque relativism. How a person can pretend to have an intelligent argument by being plainly stupid.

suggest research the news ... story about a person(s) driving through a crowd .. etc ... etc ...

guess by the comment this means that cars and hammers have never been used to kill people.

Guess by your comment that you must be the queen of 2+2 = 101. Good luck with that.

Cars and hammers etc have been used to kill sure, but a gun is rather more efficient.

After all, its rather difficult to drive a car through a university dorm, and chasing people down to smash their skulls with a hammer is quite a bit of legwork, especially when you're after double-digits.

Gun locks. Make a gun owner criminally liable in situations where gross negligence can be proven.

oh ..

I lock a gun and its used to kill someone ...

I lock a car and it's used to kill someone ...

this means in either example ... the owner is liable.

In practice that's not the case really is it.

If someone steals my unsecured gun and it gets used to commit a crime I could be held legally accountable, depending on the laws of my state.

I don't believe the same holds true if someone steals my car and does likewise.

why not the same for you car too ? after all ... a crime is a crime and you are the owner of the tool used.

I dunno - perhaps you should ask the people writing the laws. They see the distinction even if you don't.

simple ... through the quad ... during class change or any activity ... how hard is that to imgine ?

do they ... or is it the desire to be re-elected? to say they reacted to an emotional issue ?