School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Manufacturers design guns for specific purposes besides killing people. How did you come to the conclusion that a gun designed to hunt animals or be used in Olympic competition was actually designed to kill humans?

Ranb

Because the whole history of guns IS about how to kill other people in a more effective way.
Just because its possible to employ the tool in a different way (sports,hunting) doesnt take that away.
The primary reason behind a gun is how to kill a human being at a large distance more effectively.
Or do you have some proof that guns started out as hunting and sports tools and were adapted for killing people later on in history?


There is no shame in that, its not like there are different things that were designed for that. A sword for instance is the same. While it IS possible to use it for different things, its primary function is to kill other people.

 

[lionking]

There is no shame in that, its not like there are different things that were designed for that. A sword for instance is the same. While it IS possible to use it for different things, its primary function is to kill other people.

Beat me to it. I suppose some will say that swords can also be used to open rather large letters.....

 

[Light23]

Because the whole history of guns IS about how to kill other people in a more effective way.
Just because its possible to employ the tool in a different way (sports,hunting) doesnt take that away.
The primary reason behind a gun is how to kill a human being at a large distance more effectively.
Or do you have some proof that guns started out as hunting and sports tools and were adapted for killing people later on in history?


There is no shame in that, its not like there are different things that were designed for that. A sword for instance is the same. While it IS possible to use it for different things, its primary function is to kill other people.

I don't really get "primary use" arguments like this. For example, does it really matter if a knife is primarily used for chopping vegetables, if it can be very effectively used to butcher someone, and is often used for this very purpose?

What determines the "purpose" of an object, and why is this set in stone? Considering the vast majority of the 200-300 million guns in the US are used for self-defence purposes, could you not say that civilian purchased guns are actually designed for this and that this is their true purpose?

Is a small, concealable 5 shot revolver, with a laser grip really designed for killing people, or is it so that an innocent civilian can carry it and protect his life if needs be (which could involve killing someone)? That's certainly how a gun like this would be marketed.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I don't really get "primary use" arguments like this. For example, does it really matter if a knife is primarily used for chopping vegetables, if it can be very effectively used to butcher someone, and is often used for this very purpose?

What determines the "purpose" of an object, and why is this set in stone? Considering the vast majority of the 200-300 million guns in the US are used for self-defence purposes, could you not say that civilian purchased guns are actually designed for this and that this is their true purpose?

Is a small, concealable 5 shot revolver, with a laser grip really designed for killing people, or is it so that an innocent civilian can carry it and protect his life if needs be (which could involve killing someone)? That's certainly how a gun like this would be marketed.

How exactly DO you protect yourself with a gun?
Does it shield you from another's bullets?
Does it prevent some idiot with a sniper rifle hitting your head from 1000 meters?
Does it give an alarm to deter would be robbers?
Will it make someone with an (semi)automatic weapon miss you while only hitting those unarmed?

AFAIK the only way to 'protect' yourself with a gun is by killing another. Or at least threathening to.

If I wanted to be truly protected I'd buy a kevlar vest and bullet proof helmet and wear those to public areas, as those things are designed to stop bullets.

Personally I don't care less that people want guns, but to say they are somehow protective always strikes me as a bit hypocritical. There is nothing in a gun's design to protect. Only to harm others. There is a good reason armies also equip their troops with protective materials, if guns were truly the end all in protection we would be able to send soldiers to war wearing a gun and their sunday shorts.

 

[Nessie]

This is actually a pretty good argument.

However, do you not feel that it might be necessary for people to own a gun in order to defend themselves? Yes, it may not be all that likely for an intruder to break into my home and try to kill me, but this does and will happen to a significant number of people.

Is it not possible that the uses of guns for self-defence and as a deterrent could actually outweigh the damage they do?

Although that's incredibly problematic to quantify - both the damage caused and the good done. Guns used in murders may just have been the most preferable tool, and the murders might have taken place in the absence of a gun.

The number of times guns are used in self-defence can be estimated (I read a study where it was estimated at 2.5million times a year), but their effect as a deterrent cannot.

Either way, I wouldn't be in favour of making a decision to ban guns based on some freak incident, even if the victims are kids. You'd be removing a person's only reliable means of self-defence from them permanently, which could hurt a lot of people, for a long, long time.

Btw, if you could get some other highly effective non-lethal self-defence tool, I would be in favour of banning guns. It would probably require some form of range, like a taser which fires those prongs. The problem with one of those is single shot capability, the potential of not making it through clothing, and being unable to permanently stop an attacker.

A favoured but thankfully rare instrument of attack in Scotland is the good old sword, many of which are of the Samurai style. As you say you can get the likes of tasers to defend yourself, or what about a sjambok or a blow pipe? Imagine tranquillising a burglar forcing his way into the house and then phoning the police to come and pick up the now fast asleep criminal

Fact is the gun can be removed in its entirety from society with any great issues.

 

[Nessie]

Couldn't that stat be because it's more likely you or a family member will commit suicide, or get into an argument and kill each other, than it is that you will need to defend your life from an intruder? And if a gun is present it will be used in the suicide since this is a preferable choice, and the same with a deadly argument.


So couldn't the stat be misleading? It really depends on why the statistic is as it is in the first place. Your use of it insinuates that the gun makes it more likely you or your family will be harmed, than if a gun was not present.

Studies previously linked to show suicide in a house where there is a gun is higher than otherwise likely because the gun is so effective at killing and so immediate compared to the preparation needed for other forms of suicide.

For arguments and intruders the rates of death are higher because you are far more likely to to died from a gun shot wound than being stabbed or hit.

Having such an effective killing weapon about the house clearly raises the chances of death.

 

[Nessie]

Sorry, this is a skeptics forum, not a debate club. The assertion you made needs evidence that you furnish; opponents have no responsibility to provide proof of what you consider alternate views until you have provided evidence that backs your claim.

So I am sceptical that there is evidence to back a claim that I am being dishonest, ignorant and all the other crap I am getting from GeeMack.

Is there a place on this forum for someone to just go around saying thats wrong? No reason why?

If there is then you are wrong. See I can do it as well.

 

[gumboot]

I don't really get "primary use" arguments like this. For example, does it really matter if a knife is primarily used for chopping vegetables, if it can be very effectively used to butcher someone, and is often used for this very purpose?

Often? How many knives are there in the USA alone? How many times per day are knives used in the USA? In how many of those instances is said knife used to "butcher" someone? I suspect there are probably tens of billions of knives in the USA, many of them used every single day. The vast majority are probably incapable of butchering a steak, let alone a human. By contrast every single firearm in the United States is designed specifically to kill, and most of them are designed to kill humans.

What determines the "purpose" of an object, and why is this set in stone? Considering the vast majority of the 200-300 million guns in the US are used for self-defence purposes, could you not say that civilian purchased guns are actually designed for this and that this is their true purpose?

Is a small, concealable 5 shot revolver, with a laser grip really designed for killing people, or is it so that an innocent civilian can carry it and protect his life if needs be (which could involve killing someone)? That's certainly how a gun like this would be marketed.

As Lukraak_Sisser rather elegantly pointed out, the only way a gun can protect someone is by causing potentially fatal harm to another person.

 

[Nessie]

Your argument is unsupported because in order to support it you would have to objectively demonstrate this claim to be true...

​

Yet I have posted to two surveys which show that gun owners in the NRA strongly favour gun rights over gun controls and gun owners not in the NRA are a majority in favour of gun rights over gun control. It is reasonable from that to conclude that gun owners in general are a force that has caused government to also favour gun rights over gun control. Hence that lack of gun control compared to other countries and the USA's very high death rate from guns.

You have not done that, and that is why you have failed. Please learn how to debate properly. Part of that is understanding that you are responsible for supporting your claim. Even your own alleged evidence refutes your claim...

I see a definite link between the fact that the pro-gun lobby spends far more currying favour amongst politicians and the fact that gun rights have had more sway than gun control in US government. That evidence in no way refutes my claim.

Whether you're being dishonest or just communicating very poorly, you are conflating those who do not support more gun control with being anti-gun control. You are conflating those who support gun rights with being anti-gun control. You mention people favoring gun rights over gun control as if they are mutually exclusive. They aren't, so whether it's dishonesty or lousy communication that gets you there, your reasoning is flawed. There is near universal agreement that gun control is acceptable. And you have still failed to show that anyone at all is anti-gun control. So this claim...

​

... remains unsupported.

By evidencing surveys which show that the majority of gun owners (whether NRA or not) are not in favour of increased gun control, I clearly recognise that there are gun owners who are open to more gun control. What I am looking at is the majority view and where the money has gone. That then explains why I say that gun owners, who as a general are in favour of gun rights over over gun control have a been a cause of the lack of proper gun control.

My alternative argument to you is you are wrong, you have nothing to support your claims and you are being dishonest, ignorant and your comprehension and reading skills are very poor. See, I can adopt that style of argument as well.

 

[Nessie]

It's dishonesty. Several of us have pointed out that we would support certain specific and some general "controls".
but "Until gun owners accept responsibility" is the repeated lie from our friend across the pond.

The problem for your argument is that surveys show the majority of gun owners, whether NRA or not are against the majority of suggestions for further gun control. The exceptions are not giving guns to the mentally ill and the 5 day wait for a gun.

You are arguing from your stand point as an individual, I am arguing from what the majority say. Here is another example of how a lobby group and majority works,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

"A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years."

So the message is loud and clear from the Police Federation, the police's representatives who have contacts and lobby government, that the British police do not want to be armed. The public have a majority in favour of not arming, just

"The British public are not nearly so unanimous. An ICM poll in April 2004 found 47% supported arming all police, compared with 48% against."

So, the majority are against arming the police and between them and an armed police are the main interest group, the Police Federation who are shouting loud and clear, no guns. The politicians listened and no plans to arm the UK police.

What is happening in the USA is that the pro gun lobby groups are shouting loud and clear, gun rights over gun control and behind them is the majority of gun owners who who agree. The politicians listened and so gun rights are favoured over gun control.

I can see why you guys only option is to attack me and my argument as you have no evidence to counter what I say.

 

[Nessie]

Especially considering quite a few of us agreed that there are some gun control that is necessary, and also some more gun control that could be implemented to make our country better and safer.

But, for some reason, he ignores that.

That is not true. We agreed that tackling dodging gun dealers and the black market, so I am not ignoring the suggestions coming forward.

Instead you are ignoring that the majority of gun owners are against the majority of suggestions put forward so far. The exceptions being over mental illness and a five day wait.

 

[Light23]

Often? How many knives are there in the USA alone? How many times per day are knives used in the USA? In how many of those instances is said knife used to "butcher" someone? I suspect there are probably tens of billions of knives in the USA, many of them used every single day. The vast majority are probably incapable of butchering a steak, let alone a human. By contrast every single firearm in the United States is designed specifically to kill, and most of them are designed to kill humans.

Obviously I was talking about knives that were capable of butchering a person, not a standard dinner knife.

The majority of the 300 million guns in the US are never used to kill anyone.

As Lukraak_Sisser rather elegantly pointed out, the only way a gun can protect someone is by causing potentially fatal harm to another person.

This is untrue. A gun can be presented as a threat which then wards off a would be attacker. It could even be pointed at someone and not fired.

The only time it would be actually fired is if the attacker showed a clear intent to kill you, by failing to heed your warnings and continuing to advance. In this case, the only way to protect yourself is to run or fire. If you are wounding someone in this case, they have left you no choice.

 

[Light23]

Studies previously linked to show suicide in a house where there is a gun is higher than otherwise likely because the gun is so effective at killing and so immediate compared to the preparation needed for other forms of suicide.

For arguments and intruders the rates of death are higher because you are far more likely to to died from a gun shot wound than being stabbed or hit.

Having such an effective killing weapon about the house clearly raises the chances of death.

Then clearly you have nothing to worry about if you're a stable, level headed person who is highly unlikely to ever kill themselves.

 

[Dcdrac]

300 million guns in the US overkill or what?

 

[GeeMack]

Yet I have posted to two surveys which show that gun owners in the NRA strongly favour gun rights over gun controls and gun owners not in the NRA are a majority in favour of gun rights over gun control.

You haven't shown any such thing. Gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive. Although I shouldn't have to point that out, I did in my last post.

It is reasonable from that to conclude that gun owners in general are a force that has caused government to also favour gun rights over gun control.

That is not reasonable to conclude since it's based on faulty logic. Gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive.

Hence that lack of gun control compared to other countries and the USA's very high death rate from guns.

The word "hence" is generally used to indicate something is a consequence of something else. You're using it incorrectly.

I see a definite link between the fact that the pro-gun lobby spends far more currying favour amongst politicians and the fact that gun rights have had more sway than gun control in US government. That evidence in no way refutes my claim.

Well sure it does. Your claim is...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

Your evidence, as it is, doesn't say anything at all about gun owners, and it indicates that pretty much everyone supports gun control. So you have failed to support your claim. Your reference contradicts it.

By evidencing surveys which show that the majority of gun owners (whether NRA or not) are not in favour of increased gun control, I clearly recognise that there are gun owners who are open to more gun control. What I am looking at is the majority view and where the money has gone. That then explains why I say that gun owners, who as a general are in favour of gun rights over over gun control have a been a cause of the lack of proper gun control.

That's what is known as a non sequitur, which means your conclusion does not follow.

My alternative argument to you is you are wrong, you have nothing to support your claims and you are being dishonest, ignorant and your comprehension and reading skills are very poor. See, I can adopt that style of argument as well.

As an alternative argument that also fails, mostly because it says nothing whatsoever about your claim. Ironically enough it does indicate a willful ignorance of what I've been writing, it demonstrates a possible lack of comprehension of what I've been writing, and it is a juvenile argument which further demonstrates that you have no desire to participate in an honest discussion.

All that aside however, this claim...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

... remains unsupported. I kind of left the door opened for you to admit that you were communicating poorly and are unable to support that claim. You should have grabbed the opportunity. Your desperate flailing is looking is more and more foolish.

 

[Nessie]

Then clearly you have nothing to worry about if you're a stable, level headed person who is highly unlikely to ever kill themselves.

The big problem in the USA is that so many unstable and stupid people have been able to get guns. For example Rodney Peairs, a legal gun owner who shot and killed a Japanese exchange student dressed as John Travolta after he had gone up to Peairs house by mistake. Peairs shot the student claiming he thought he was trespassing with criminal intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

 

[GeeMack]

What is happening in the USA is that the pro gun lobby groups are shouting loud and clear, gun rights over gun control and behind them is the majority of gun owners who who agree. The politicians listened and so gun rights are favoured over gun control.

Gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive.

I can see why you guys only option is to attack me and my argument as you have no evidence to counter what I say.

Crying persecution now? Nobody is attacking you. The feigned indignation thing won't work. Wahh.

But directly to the point: You are employing a cornucopia of logical fallacies including non sequiturs, false dichotomies, excluded middles, straw men, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and some flat out dishonesty. In essence you're saying more people like oranges better than apples therefore more people are anti-apple. Your argument is stupid. It's not valid. To counter what you're saying only requires pointing out that your argument is flawed. And that has been done repeatedly.

 

[gumboot]

The big problem in the USA is that so many unstable and stupid people have been able to get guns. For example Rodney Peairs, a legal gun owner who shot and killed a Japanese exchange student dressed as John Travolta after he had gone up to Peairs house by mistake. Peairs shot the student claiming he thought he was trespassing with criminal intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

It is utterly mind blowing that the jury acquitted an act that was blatant murder (that he was only charged with manslaughter is itself a disgrace). That it's apparently okay to murder someone just for knocking on your door is sickening. People with such fundamentally bad judgement aren't mature enough to own any sort of weapon.

ETA. Incidentally, it seems that in the USA, or at least in some states, they don't hold to the principal of reasonable force.

It's pretty much a cornerstone of self defense law in most countries that you are only legally permitted to use as much force as is reasonable to address the nature of the threat. Leaving your house to shoot a trespasser who is exiting the property is about as far from reasonable force as you can get.

 

[Nessie]

You haven't shown any such thing. Gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive. Although I shouldn't have to point that out, I did in my last post.

That is not reasonable to conclude since it's based on faulty logic. Gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive.

The word "hence" is generally used to indicate something is a consequence of something else. You're using it incorrectly.

Well sure it does. Your claim is...

​

Your evidence, as it is, doesn't say anything at all about gun owners, and it indicates that pretty much everyone supports gun control. So you have failed to support your claim. Your reference contradicts it.

That's what is known as a non sequitur, which means your conclusion does not follow.

As an alternative argument that also fails, mostly because it says nothing whatsoever about your claim. Ironically enough it does indicate a willful ignorance of what I've been writing, it demonstrates a possible lack of comprehension of what I've been writing, and it is a juvenile argument which further demonstrates that you have no desire to participate in an honest discussion.

All that aside however, this claim...

​

... remains unsupported. I kind of left the door opened for you to admit that you were communicating poorly and are unable to support that claim. You should have grabbed the opportunity. Your desperate flailing is looking is more and more foolish.

Your own argument here

"As an alternative argument that also fails, mostly because it says nothing whatsoever about your claim. Ironically enough it does indicate a willful ignorance of what I've been writing, it demonstrates a possible lack of comprehension of what I've been writing, and it is a juvenile argument which further demonstrates that you have no desire to participate in an honest discussion."

applies to your posts. Come at me with evidence or I will come back at you with your style of argument.

Re gun owners not in the NRA supporting gun rights over gun controls

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

National gun registry - 60% against
Ban on large magazines - 56% against
Ban semi autos - 64% against
Limit on handguns - 82% against
Police permit system - 80% against
Ban handguns - 95% against.

Yet despite that you say there is no evidence gun owners not in the NRA are a force against gun controls. That is why you resort to your style of argument as it is all you have, bleating.

 

[Nessie]

Gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive.

I know. Now convince the pro gun lobby that there can be successful and far reaching gun controls that do not affect their rights. Good luck on that one.

Crying persecution now? Nobody is attacking you. The feigned indignation thing won't work. Wahh.

But directly to the point: You are employing a cornucopia of logical fallacies including non sequiturs, false dichotomies, excluded middles, straw men, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and some flat out dishonesty. In essence you're saying more people like oranges better than apples therefore more people are anti-apple. Your argument is stupid. It's not valid. To counter what you're saying only requires pointing out that your argument is flawed. And that has been done repeatedly.

Ad nauseam, your only technique. You keep banging on that my argument is flawed without showing how in any form of analysis or any countering evidence. Thats it, nothing else is employed to counter my argument.