Ohio school gunman kills self, wounds 4

[Peikko 1,575]

When on earth did I suggest otherwise?

I have only come into this to ask those who own guns to quit skirting around the guns are just like a motor cars and a nail guns and say, a gun is tool designed to kill things and because of that they should be stored out of harms way when not in use. How hard is that?

Edited October 12, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

When on earth did I suggest otherwise?

I have only come into this to ask those who own guns to quit skirting around the guns are just like a motor cars and a nail guns and say, a gun is tool designed to kill things and because of that they should be stored out of harms way when not in use. How hard is that?

Purple, sweet dreams goin out to ya. Its late. We can pick this up in the morning. Goodnight sister.

[natty bumppo 297]

You continue to play up the dangers of the motor car and play down the dangers of guns. However, to play down what a gun is, well, I find that bizarre from someone who teaches gun handling.

Why all this anger? I have just exposed what I think are the disingenuous arguments you have been using to support gun ownership. If you are prepared to call a spade a spade, I would be more prepared to listen to what you have to say.

I don't think it is strange at all for someone who teaches. This person teaches for life. To be healthy, prosperous, and safe.

I do believe is it strange for someone to preach NOT TO TEACH about safety. Reminds me of someone teaching the old cranial rectal inversion maneuver.

Motor car dangers ... I'll give you two examples :

1) hang up and drive

2) whats the hurry ... so you are now one car lenght further at the light (btw ... there is no one behind me ... and I just left rubber on the road because of your stupid @$$)

Now

I know why my insurance increased $500 per year when I moved from VA to TX ... geez

[natty bumppo 297]

When on earth did I suggest otherwise?

I have only come into this to ask those who own guns to quit skirting around the guns are just like a motor cars and a nail guns and say, a gun is tool designed to kill things and because of that they should be stored out of harms way when not in use. How hard is that?

I'm going to put my guns on the floor tonight ... the ammunition on the floor in the other room .... and go to sleep.

I really hope the guns will be back from their nights foray before I awake and lock the door as I leave for work. Otherwise ... the guns will have no breakfast and will need to stay by the pool until I return home from work.

Because the guns are dangerous ... I hope they will behave because I know they will cause trouble without human intervention.

[natty bumppo 297]

When on earth did I suggest otherwise?

I have only come into this to ask those who own guns to quit skirting around the guns are just like a motor cars and a nail guns and say, a gun is tool designed to kill things and because of that they should be stored out of harms way when not in use. How hard is that?

I'm going to put my guns on the floor tonight ... the ammunition on the floor in the other room .... and go to sleep.

I really hope the guns will be back from their nights foray before I awake and lock the door as I leave for work. Otherwise ... the guns will have no breakfast and will need to stay by the pool until I return home from work.

Because the guns are dangerous ... I hope they will behave because I know they will cause trouble without human intervention.

oh wait ... these inanimate things can perpetuate harm just by being created .. without any human intervention.

maybe the problem isnt guns ... it's humans ?!? ... could be ?!?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Natty - perhaps you could wake us up when you have a specific argument - rather than distortive, irrelevant generalisations and relativisms.

How the he!!, is he suppose to wake you up? You really need to spend more time with yourself! Fckin "IVORY TOWER"bull shite! You really should spend more time in the dirt of life! Your comfort thrives on anynimity! Correcting others is your defense. Your education is only as good as the people you quote and not of your sprirt. Your opinion is derived from others and not from your heart. Living through the written word that you read is theirs "not yours".

Natty stand tall,you are you! Never let a twister of words change your heart.

Twister of words? You mean - like how a firearm is the same as a car, fishing rod or hammer?

I mean its good you guys have discovered existential philosophy, and if you applied it elsewhere in your lives it might actually have some value. Here however it really is quite phony.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why are the gun owners being so coy as to what a gun is? They are designed to protect? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Guns were designed with the express purpose to kill and maim. Armour is designed to protect. Anyone who owns guns and hides behind the 'it's simply a tool' argument is not someone I would call responsible. I am also somewhat shocked by the rather lax way some people appear to be saying they keep their guns at home. I guess most armies are pretty stupid for having such strict rules for when/how guns and ammunition are stored and used when not in combat zones? Or maybe I have that wrong, weapons are just allowed to lie around in barracks because everyone is so responsible and knows how to handle guns so rules aren't necessary?

As for the guns are lethal weapons thing, well, maybe we should suggest our troops put away their silly guns and start ramming the terrorists with the more deadly Toyota Camry.

Perhaps we'd all be better off walking around with a belt of dynamite strapped to our chests connected to a dead man's handle. I mean if we can argue that a gun is the same as a car - I sure as hell can argue that a suicide belt is just as indistinguishable.

Failing that - seeing as how cars are infinitely more dangerous than guns I propose that we we ship drunk drivers to Iraq where they can run down the Iraqi insurgents. Because its all the same... In the hands of a trained professional, or an dangerous incompetant guns and cars can be equally deadly.

I have to use ridiculous examples to show what a ridiculous, patently stupid argument that is.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How the he!!, is he suppose to wake you up? You really need to spend more time with yourself! Fckin "IVORY TOWER"bull shite! You really should spend more time in the dirt of life! Your comfort thrives on anynimity! Correcting others is your defense. Your education is only as good as the people you quote and not of your sprirt. Your opinion is derived from others and not from your heart. Living through the written word that you read is theirs "not yours".

As BTW - perhaps you could refrain from insulting people's intelligence and drop the working class hero rubbish.

If you want to talk about "The dirt of life" I suggest you start a thread of your own about it. But then again bitching about how "your life was so hard" would probably sound like whining to you.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's middle ground here - although a gun's primary or sole purpose is to discharge a projectile which can penetrate through human flesh, it can prevent violence as a deterent. It's the same argument about nuclear weapons, but on a smaller scale - if one country knows that any military aggression it uses towards it's adversary will be matched by nuclear retaliation that would be devastating. That said, I don't think a gun is the best deterrent (best way for one to protect themselves) in most situations.

Example: A woman walking to and from her car to her place of employment. Although she is at risk of being attacked, she cannot carry a gun with her to work (for most jobs anyway). I'm in full support for people's right to carry a gun and protect themselves, but realistically, when you consider most of times one is at high risk of injury from another person, a gun would not or could not be used and I think that's a disservice to those seeking personal safety to say they should own a gun. That same woman would do herself more to carry pepper spray, a stun gun, or take self defense classes than to go out and buy a handgun for protection. Except in certain situations, most of the times when she will be at risk of harm, the gun will not be an available option for her.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

Failing that - seeing as how cars are infinitely more dangerous than guns I propose that we we ship drunk drivers to Iraq where they can run down the Iraqi insurgents. Because its all the same... In the hands of a trained professional, or an dangerous incompetant guns and cars can be equally deadly.

I have to use ridiculous examples to show what a ridiculous, patently stupid argument that is.

i'll agree that in the hands of an incompetant both are equally deadly. if guns are outlawed, cars may well be the weapon of choice for premeditated murder though for the insane.

two things i left out of my earlier post:

the year i received my first gun was christmas 1970. almost 37 years ago, and 27 years of being a legal adult.

i spent 20 years in the army also in case you were wondering that, ph.

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

So, to avoid further confusion, are you saying that your earlier implication that your father's guns were simply left lying around was shall we say, misleading?

as most of the guns were horizontal, lying around is perhaps not inaccurate

they were hidden all over the house, and certainly not in plain view.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Failing that - seeing as how cars are infinitely more dangerous than guns I propose that we we ship drunk drivers to Iraq where they can run down the Iraqi insurgents. Because its all the same... In the hands of a trained professional, or an dangerous incompetant guns and cars can be equally deadly.

I have to use ridiculous examples to show what a ridiculous, patently stupid argument that is.

i'll agree that in the hands of an incompetant both are equally deadly. if guns are outlawed, cars may well be the weapon of choice for premeditated murder though for the insane.

Well you need only look at countries which have gun control to see if that statement bears out. We have drink drivers sure, we don't have people driving Max-Max style through town centres.

So, to avoid further confusion, are you saying that your earlier implication that your father's guns were simply left lying around was shall we say, misleading?

as most of the guns were horizontal, lying around is perhaps not inaccurate

they were hidden all over the house, and certainly not in plain view.

Fair enough - I took you to mean that they were basically unsecured (i.e. not in locked boxes). Again you knew where they were - so if you were crazy and intent on causing mayhem you would have been able to lay hands on one without too much trouble?

[natty bumppo 297]

Well you need only look at countries which have gun control to see if that statement bears out. We have drink drivers sure, we don't have people driving Max-Max style through town centres.

Fair enough - I took you to mean that they were basically unsecured (i.e. not in locked boxes). Again you knew where they were - so if you were crazy and intent on causing mayhem you would have been able to lay hands on one without too much trouble?

and probably have stiffer penalties and enforcement than here. how easy it to get back into another car and drive drunk again. cars are so easy to find and are relatively inexpensive here.

... or the ice pick, knife, car keys, axe ... probably a few poisonous substances .... the typical home is full of deadly items

Edited October 12, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[DeadPoolX 9]

There's middle ground here - although a gun's primary or sole purpose is to discharge a projectile which can penetrate through human flesh, it can prevent violence as a deterent. It's the same argument about nuclear weapons, but on a smaller scale - if one country knows that any military aggression it uses towards it's adversary will be matched by nuclear retaliation that would be devastating. That said, I don't think a gun is the best deterrent (best way for one to protect themselves) in most situations.

Example: A woman walking to and from her car to her place of employment. Although she is at risk of being attacked, she cannot carry a gun with her to work (for most jobs anyway). I'm in full support for people's right to carry a gun and protect themselves, but realistically, when you consider most of times one is at high risk of injury from another person, a gun would not or could not be used and I think that's a disservice to those seeking personal safety to say they should own a gun. That same woman would do herself more to carry pepper spray, a stun gun, or take self defense classes than to go out and buy a handgun for protection. Except in certain situations, most of the times when she will be at risk of harm, the gun will not be an available option for her.

I absolutely agree. .

Firearms are designed to kill other living creatures; however, like you said, if it's known (or potentially known) that someone else is "packing heat" then the chances of someone else pulling a gun are decreased. Unlike what some would have us believe, very few truly wish to get involved in a shootout. The outcome is rarely good and most parties understand this. Your nuclear weapons analogy is a good one and if you don't mind, I may "borrow" it for the future.

I think you're right, though, about where one may or may not carry a firearm. That's why I see no purpose to a CHL. Most places of business won't allow a gun on their property, so what's the point? Having the ability to carry a firearm with you won't do any good if you need to leave it in your car. The entire point of a CHL is immediate access to it in the event of an emergency. Perhaps something such as pepper spray, a taser, or martial arts training would be better for a woman (or even a man, since men are also targets of violence as well -- particularly gang-related or if the perpetrator is a psychopath) to have on her most of the time.

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

Failing that - seeing as how cars are infinitely more dangerous than guns I propose that we we ship drunk drivers to Iraq where they can run down the Iraqi insurgents. Because its all the same... In the hands of a trained professional, or an dangerous incompetant guns and cars can be equally deadly.

I have to use ridiculous examples to show what a ridiculous, patently stupid argument that is.

i'll agree that in the hands of an incompetant both are equally deadly. if guns are outlawed, cars may well be the weapon of choice for premeditated murder though for the insane.

Well you need only look at countries which have gun control to see if that statement bears out. We have drink drivers sure, we don't have people driving Max-Max style through town centres.

So, to avoid further confusion, are you saying that your earlier implication that your father's guns were simply left lying around was shall we say, misleading?

as most of the guns were horizontal, lying around is perhaps not inaccurate

they were hidden all over the house, and certainly not in plain view.

Fair enough - I took you to mean that they were basically unsecured (i.e. not in locked boxes). Again you knew where they were - so if you were crazy and intent on causing mayhem you would have been able to lay hands on one without too much trouble?

they were not locked up, no. they were not loaded and ammo was separate. and no, i didn't know at the time they were hidden like that - i found that out about 5 years ago from my dad. the only ones i knew about were the rifles and shotguns hidden in the air conditioner vent, i'd put the number of that around 20. i'm fairly certain that my father kept a pistol or two or three in the bedroom but i never looked around in there for one nor had any desire to look for one.

the first time i fired a pistol, btw, was when i was 20 and in the military. i also never had a desire to shoot one when i was a kid and i didn't particularly see anything special about them.