High School Stabbings

[Checkmite]

Personally if I were on a crazed rampage...

You can't honestly think a good argument could ever start this way...

 

[Autolite]

Are you also sticking with the arms the Founders had?

I never really understood this argument.

The anti's are implying that the 'Founders' could not have envisioned the lethality of modern firearms. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the gist of the RTKBA was to be able to arm oneself against an enemy?

Today's guns might be deadlier but a modern 'enemy' will be at least as well armed...

 

[Mudcat]

Again, this is irrelevant. Guns serve a legitimate purpose for which there is no similarly effective substitute.

Not true. Knowledge and being smart is the best substitute of all.

Have that and your need for a gun for anything other than a largely useless toy becomes practically zero. Don't have that and you'll probably going to get yourself killed anyway, regardless of how well you arm yourself against the boogeyman flavor of the week you're unreasonably paranoid about.

That is utility enough. It doesn't matter that they aren't used for opening boxes or preparing meals.

Actually it does. The only really reasonable use for a gun, and that's highly questionable, is to gather food.

Why is "limited usefulness" even relevant? You still haven't explained.

What exactly can you do with a gun that you can't do more safely with other means? Hunting? Are you really that bored that you can't find something better to do than kill Bambi for barely enough meat to feed your family for a month?

 

[Mudcat]

Highlighted the lie.

No, the highlighted is the truth.

Let me make this easy for you. A hammer can be used to bash a man's head in or build that same man a house. A knife can be used to take a man's life or tend to that very same man's injuries. A saw can take off a man's wrist or provide that very same man firewood.

What utility does a gun have? Feed him for only so long as he has ammo and can count on his aim?

I think I'd rather have the knife, thanks.

OK so it took you one entire post to goalpost move.

First it was "guns have no utility". Zero.

Now it's "they don't have the same kinds of utility".

If you had a better reading comprehension you would understand that the two are the same thing. Fact of the matter your pop gun wouldn't even have the utility of a lump of moss growing on the side of a tree.

You wouldn't have done that because of an agenda would you?

The agenda I have for a safer and more secure society, you mean?

So what is your agenda?

 

[Gallstones]

Not true. Knowledge and being smart is the best substitute of all.

Have that and your need for a gun for anything other than a largely useless toy becomes practically zero. Don't have that and you'll probably going to get yourself killed anyway, regardless of how well you arm yourself against the boogeyman flavor of the week you're unreasonably paranoid about.

Firearms are not toys, they are tools. And when you need one its value is priceless.
We are all going to die by some means eventually. The huge majority of gun owners, people born and raised into families who own and use firearms, people who have owned firearms for most of their lives, die from heart attacks and cancer mostly, just like people who have never owned a gun.

Actually it does. The only really reasonable use for a gun, and that's highly questionable, is to gather food.

Whatever "reason" I choose to have a gun for is a reasonable reason.

What exactly can you do with a gun that you can't do more safely with other means? Hunting? Are you really that bored that you can't find something better to do than kill Bambi for barely enough meat to feed your family for a month?

I'll use the low values, [#meat]

You will get about 50-55% of the weight of the animal. Here is a chart of average weights by species, which will vary by region.

Species Average (lbs.) Exceptional (lbs.) Upper Limit (lbs.)
Antelope 80 100 125 [40#]
Whitetail Deer 125 225 350 [60#]
Mule Deer 150 250 400 [75#]
Bighorn Sheep 175 250 300 [85#]
Black Bear 200 400 650 [100#]
Caribou 250 400 600 [125#]
Grizzly Bear 500 1,000 1,500 [250#]
Elk (Wapiti) 500 800 1,000 [250#]
Moose 650 1,200 1,600 [600#]
note - females weigh approximately 1/3 less than males
http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showt...-Moose-Bear)&p=5039350&viewfull=1#post5039350

You either have a huge family or you eat huge amounts of meat--how many cows do you guys eat in a month?

People do eat bear meat.

It is kind of obvious that you are not informed enough about the topic of firearms to know what you are talking about. Ergo your opinions are poorly reasoned and you have yet to substitute knowledge and being smart to give your opinions any value.

 

[Mudcat]

Firearms are not toys, they are tools.

I'm sorry, I was mistaken... Firearms aren't even toys, they dream of one day being toys, then they might be marginally useful to society.

And when you need one its value is priceless.

And when you don't need one, which is about 99% of the gun owning population if gun owners are to be trusted, then it's about as useful as a paperweight.

We are all going to die by some means eventually. The huge majority of gun owners, people born and raised into families who own and use firearms, people who have owned firearms for most of their lives, die from heart attacks and cancer mostly, just like people who have never owned a gun.

The difference between non-gun owners and gun owners is that non-gun owners don't contribute to more deaths per year in the states than there are in active war zones in third world countries.

You either have a huge family or you eat huge amounts of meat--how many cows do you guys eat in a month?

I can't speak for my sister or her family, but my Mom went vegetarian for health reasons. Since I live with her, so did I to lend her support.

It is kind of obvious that you are not informed enough about the topic of firearms to know what you are talking about.

Here's what I do know. Things are easier to control the smaller the over all numbers are lower. There are four-hundred million plus guns in the country with millions more being produced and circulated into the general population every year. How do you keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals when there's such an over proliferation of them?

How long until the next Aurora, Columbine, or other mass shooting occurs because the overwhelming number of weapons means a riffle lands in the hands of some psycho? Or is that your idea of freedom? The freedom for someone to commit some unspeakable horrors just so you can go shot at some clay pigeons?

Ergo your opinions are poorly reasoned and you have yet to substitute knowledge and being smart to give your opinions any value.

Knowing how to be aware of your surroundings and act smart has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge one does or does not have on piddly little pop guns. There is no correlation at all.

 

[Mudcat]

I am quite sure those brilliant men know that things evolved.

Yes, they were quite brilliant and forward thinking men. Which is why I like to think that if they knew what a negative impact guns would have on society they would never had passed the second amendment, knowing how badly the pro-gun twisted it's meaning.

 

[This is The End]

No, the highlighted is the truth.

Unfortunately for you, it is a lie. You also seem to wish it were a convenient one, but all it takes is simple logic to realize it is not.

You should have at least tried to play the "which object as the most legitimate uses" game correctly, as opposed to trying to claim it had none.

 

[This is The End]

Yes, they were quite brilliant and forward thinking men. Which is why I like to think that if they knew what a negative impact guns would have on society they would never had passed the second amendment, knowing how badly the pro-gun twisted it's meaning.

Most people would say your main problem is the quite common lie you ended the paragraph with. The highlighted one, though, is even worse.

Odd how a nation with a Bill of Rights such as as you portray became, in the eyes of many scholars, one of the greatest nations in the history of the planet Earth.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not true. Knowledge and being smart is the best substitute of all.

Knowledge and being smart are arguably the most important things, but they are still not substitutes for a gun. To believe otherwise is, well, stupid.

Have that and your need for a gun for anything other than a largely useless toy becomes practically zero.

That's wishful thinking. Sometimes it's not possible to avoid danger. Sometimes it's not possible to predict where danger will strike.

Actually it does. The only really reasonable use for a gun, and that's highly questionable, is to gather food.

Thank you for demonstrating quite clearly that your opinion is deeply unserious.

What exactly can you do with a gun that you can't do more safely with other means?

Defend yourself against an attacker.

Hunting? Are you really that bored that you can't find something better to do than kill Bambi for barely enough meat to feed your family for a month?

Dear are giant hoofed rats, and because we've displaced their natural predators in many places, hunting is environmentally beneficial. Is your emotional development so stunted that your attachment to a children's cartoon prevents rational analysis?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Two years ago I killed five deer and the meat lasted us well into last year's season. We supplemented it with store bought chicken and occasionally pork for variety. I haven't bought beef in quite a while. Last year I killed five deer and actually gave two of them away to friends. My daughter also killed a deer. I still have quite a bit of venison in my freezer. It's sad that some people think this is not a legitimate use for a gun.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's an article that was originally written, by people who don't understand the why behind medical research standards

That's a very shallow reading of the article, and also misses the reason I used it in the current discussion, namely, as commentary on the issue of whether or not guns are superior to knives for self defense. Now, is this point still a matter of contention, or do you concede this as being true? Because if you concede that it's true, then the link doesn't matter, and we can move on. And if you don't, well, what would actually convince you? A double-blind study of the outcome of knife versus gun attacks? Because, good luck getting that past an institutional review board.

In a discussion about the generalities of knives and guns as weapons, you introduced a special situation where a knife's general advantage would disappear or be less useful. My main idea on this tangent is that a special situation can almost always be found that would rob any method's advantage, including that of guns.

Being physically weaker than a potential assailant is not merely a "special situation". It's an incredibly common condition. Furthermore, the only situations you have found which can "rob" a gun of its effectiveness also do the same for knives, while the reverse is not true.

You're repeating this assertion that knives are less effective, because "you have to be closer to use them", but I'm still waiting to be convinced that A = B.

If they are within arm's length, then (by definition) they can strike you, and your knife cannot prevent that. Why is this not obvious to you?

No, I'm arguing that I think they're better because the worst case scenario when using a knife (or similar weapon) - I am unable to stop someone from assailing me - is in my estimation less negative than the worst case scenario when using a gun (I kill an innocent person).

So... probabilities don't enter into your moral calculus? Only worst-case scenarios matter, less severe but far more likely ones are irrelevant? That makes no sense.

Oh, and even absent probabilities, your moral calculus is still wrong. There is also the risk that other people could be killed by an attacker that you failed to stop with your knife. You know, those innocents whom you so nobly esteem as more valuable than yourself (an estimation I will not second-guess), and whose number of deaths could also exceed one because of your impotence. Isn't that worse than what you claimed was the worst-case scenario?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I also carry a knife or two while hunting. They come in handy for that too.

 

[Kestrel]

I also carry a knife or two while hunting. They come in handy for that too.

I carry a pocket knife most if the time and a knife designed for field dressing game while hunting. I don't strap on my hunting knife to visit the local tavern.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I don't strap on my hunting knife to visit the local tavern.

Me neither. For tavern visits I only carry my wallet, keys, pocket knife, lock picks, cell phone, flashlight/taser, nightvision monocular, bullwhip and a blue sharpie.

 

[Ziggurat]

Me neither. For tavern visits I only carry my wallet, keys, pocket knife, lock picks, cell phone, flashlight/taser, nightvision monocular, bullwhip and a blue sharpie.

A blue sharpie?

Damn, you're hardcore!

 

[tyr_13]

We had a thread a while back where it was heavily implied I was making up for something because I almost always have a pocket knife with me, and that the general carrying of a knife is not only uncalled for, but should be criminal.

So don't be surprised when people don't accept the 'but knives are common place' argument, because many honestly believe that they should not be.

 

[I Ratant]

I never really understood this argument.

The anti's are implying that the 'Founders' could not have envisioned the lethality of modern firearms. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the gist of the RTKBA was to be able to arm oneself against an enemy?

Today's guns might be deadlier but a modern 'enemy' will be at least as well better armed...

.
FTFY.
The armed militia encountering the full range of modern weaponry, heat seekers, etc.. and pointing their Winchester 70 at it won't be around much longer.

 

[I Ratant]

...

Dear are giant hoofed rats, and because we've displaced their natural predators in many places, hunting is environmentally beneficial. Is your emotional development so stunted that your attachment to a children's cartoon prevents rational analysis?

.
I've seen the results of not hunting deer in a large population. The number of weird shaped deer grow every year. I shot one that appeared to have the head of a sheep and white patches all over the body. The culling of that deer herd helped it stay "deery".

 

[I Ratant]

The smallish ....~1" blade pocket knife makes opening bubble wrapped stuff a lot less stressful when looking at purchases in the Mall.
The Leatherman stays in the car.