A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Mountain Man]

Get a grip - the Second wasn't incorporated for over one hundred and fifty something years. And since incorporation, most laws are still on the books - so it CANNOT be a blank check.

2nd Amendment is part of this country's founding document and the law of the land.

[Jedidiah]

Negligence isn't an irrational concept - and requiring people to take responsibility for their property is perfectly sane and reasonable.

I will disagree, but not with a lot of respect for what I see as a way to avoid the issue. When I was a kid a locked door was enough. Now the guy who locks his door is negligent? Baloney no matter how thin you slice it. Sorry this is more evidence of our societies break with reality.

[Adrift]

You are, by implication, when you downplay other methods people frequently use to commit suicide. The high rate of non-gun suicides in other countries was pointed out, and your response was "Imagine how much worse it would be if they used guns!" It seems you really don't care about suicide rates, you just want to vilify guns.

Ok, well for clarification's sake, I don't think guns are the ONLY effective method of killing. I think they are one of the MOST effective methods of killing. And it really makes no sense to want to vilify guns for no reason. The reason I think guns ought to be vilified is tied directly to their effectiveness. So, far from not caring about suicide rates, I care a lot.

[Cow Poke]

Nope. Currently I'm as cool as a cucumber. The impression I've gotten from many gun rights people on this forum really is that guns are not any more effective than knives, cars, poison and the like to the determined individual. I'd be more than happy to see that that impression is misplaced.

I think you get that kind of impression because that's what you're looking for. You are entitled to be wrong.

[rogue06]

Cyanide is regulated....

Again. One of these incredibly easy to get things. All you have to do is... Nope. Not gonna tell ya

[Cow Poke]

So I see you have no examples of anyone denying the effectiveness of guns, just distortions of what people said.

I think he allowed the conversation to morph into something else, and is alleging that, whatever "that" is. Guns are incredibly effective for killing - there, I said it. And never said or implied otherwise.

[Adrift]

So I see you have no examples of anyone denying the effectiveness of guns, just distortions of what people said.

I don't believe I've distorted anything anyone said. I was sharing my impression based on how people compare the effectiveness of guns to things like knives, poison, cars, and the like. I'm glad to hear that impression is wrong.

[Adrift]

I think you get that kind of impression because that's what you're looking for. You are entitled to be wrong.

Why would I want to look for that?

[Adrift]

I think he allowed the conversation to morph into something else, and is alleging that, whatever "that" is. Guns are incredibly effective for killing - there, I said it. And never said or implied otherwise.

Would you also agree that they're more effective at killing people than, say, knives?

[Cow Poke]

Would you also agree that they're more effective at killing people than, say, knives?

It would be silly not to. But, just in case you might think that's not a direct answer - of course! And, again - I never said nor implied otherwise.

I accept your apology, but there's no need to kneel.

[Adrift]

It would be silly not to. But, just in case you might think that's not a direct answer - of course! And, again - I never said nor implied otherwise.

I accept your apology, but there's no need to kneel.

I think we're making progress!

[Cow Poke]

I think we're making progress!

Yes, I'm learning how to counter your false impressions and hobble your conclusion-jumping.

[Adrift]

Yes, I'm learning how to counter your false impressions and hobble your conclusion-jumping.

Like I said, this is one impression I was happy to see hobbled! So next time someone mentions something about guns being effective at killing people, we'll hopefully see less posts saying something to the effect of, "...well knives/cars/poisons/etc are effective too..." as though they were comparable.

[KingsGambit]

I think you get that kind of impression because that's what you're looking for. You are entitled to be wrong.

I get the same impression. Just the other day some of my pro-gun friends (who are on TWeb) were posting on Facebook publicizing a knife attack in Japan, making light of anti-gun folks arguing that banning guns solves violence. I doubted they would have cared about the incident other than to make a point. The implication seems to be that other methods of violence are just as effective as guns (sort of like the people in this thread jumping in to point out other methods of committing suicide). If the implication is that guns are no more effective at being violent than other items, then that cuts both ways - people could presumably defend themselves without guns, so this tack could easily work against gun advocates.

Can I be completely honest? It bothers me when somebody writes a thought out post and you respond with nothing but "wow". It strikes me as very dismissive and implying that the other person's post is so stupid and obviously wrong that they don't deserve a response. This has actually bothered me for awhile.

[KingsGambit]

Someone who is determined to kill himself can easily do so without a gun. The anti-Constitution crowd citing gun suicide rates is a red herring.

My post had literally nothing to do with the Constitution or gun bans, so next time please slow down and actually read the post. It was simply to demonstrate that it is legitimate to consider guns as a unique factor in making suicide more likely, as Adrift's post #311 points out. This was only in response to another poster arguing that gun suicides should be taken out of gun violence statistics, and all I'm saying is there's no reason to remove them as guns can be a contributing factor.