|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 23, 2016 21:14:55 GMT
Actually, they don't both involve killing children. Only one does.I don't support abortion. I support a woman's right to control over her body. Big difference. I'm pro-choice and I'm extremely thankful I've never been in the position to have to choose, but you're only fooling yourself if you're arguing that it's not a person growing there. Just like there are those who are fooling themselves by arguing that guns don't kill, when guns were manufactured for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill.
|
|
|
Post by Laurie on Jun 23, 2016 21:18:27 GMT
I'm pro-choice and I'm extremely thankful I've never been in the position to have to choose, but you're only fooling yourself if you're arguing that it's not a person growing there. Just like there are those who are fooling themselves by arguing that guns don't kill, when guns were manufactured for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill. Yes, but they were a means to get food. Back in time when they actually had to grow and kill their food rather than going to Walmart for highly preservative foods like Uncrustables.
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Jun 23, 2016 21:23:36 GMT
Just like there are those who are fooling themselves by arguing that guns don't kill, when guns were manufactured for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill. Yes, but they were a means to get food. Back in time when they actually had to grow and kill their food rather than going to Walmart for highly preservative foods like Uncrustables. The guns that many people want to restrict are not the kind you use to kill food. I think that's been made abundantly clear.
|
|
|
Post by Laurie on Jun 23, 2016 21:28:09 GMT
Yes, but they were a means to get food. Back in time when they actually had to grow and kill their food rather than going to Walmart for highly preservative foods like Uncrustables. The guns that many people want to restrict are not the kind you use to kill food. I think that's been made abundantly clear. I apologize but I have not been opening most of the political threads because of the nastiness so my post was only in direct reference to the wording of the post I quoted. I have no idea what has been made abundantly clear. It would be nice to be able to talk politics but instead people are choosing to name call and bully...on both sides. Back when I first joined 2 Peas we had this magical thing called discussions where both sides would talk about their opinions. I enjoyed that and often times came away from a thread with a different perspective. The political threads are different now and the "other side" fails for me to see a difference POV.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 24, 2016 0:54:54 GMT
Just like there are those who are fooling themselves by arguing that guns don't kill, when guns were manufactured for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill. Yes, but they were a means to get food. Back in time when they actually had to grow and kill their food rather than going to Walmart for highly preservative foods like Uncrustables. Actually, guns were created because they had more power to penetrate armor. Their purpose was to kill as quickly and effectively as possible. They were not originally invented as a means to hunt (that came later). Killing animals fell to hands, rocks, sharpened stones, flint arrows and trapping. So guns were created specifically to kill the enemy troops.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:54:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 1:07:14 GMT
I'm pro-choice and I'm extremely thankful I've never been in the position to have to choose, but you're only fooling yourself if you're arguing that it's not a person growing there. Just like there are those who are fooling themselves by arguing that guns don't kill, when guns were manufactured for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill. I said in another thread... The point of that statement is not to say that people don't die when they're shot with a gun. It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 24, 2016 1:13:26 GMT
Yes, but they were a means to get food. Back in time when they actually had to grow and kill their food rather than going to Walmart for highly preservative foods like Uncrustables. The guns that many people want to restrict are not the kind you use to kill food. I think that's been made abundantly clear. the problem is, it is not. The guns you want to ban shoot the exact same way the guns we use for hunting certain animals shoot. The body looks different, but they shoot the same way.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 1:27:27 GMT
The guns that many people want to restrict are not the kind you use to kill food. I think that's been made abundantly clear. the problem is, it is not. The guns you want to ban shoot the exact same way the guns we use for hunting certain animals shoot. The body looks different, but they shoot the same way. Semi-automatic guns are not used by any hunters I know and I know quite a few. They hunt turkey, deer, and rabbits. What game does one shoot with semi-automatics? Many hunters I know are switching over to cross-bow hunting because they think that there is more sport in hunting with a bow than a gun. That includes hunters in WV and VA.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 1:28:51 GMT
Just like there are those who are fooling themselves by arguing that guns don't kill, when guns were manufactured for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill. I said in another thread... The point of that statement is not to say that people don't die when they're shot with a gun. It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead. If the tool doesn't matter, then you don't need to own a gun to protect yourself from "tyranny" or from "bad guys." An ice pick or knife will do. They will be just as dead. That is probably not a great argument because it can easily be flipped to show that one doesn't need a gun to feel safe or defend oneself at all.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 24, 2016 2:47:11 GMT
the problem is, it is not. The guns you want to ban shoot the exact same way the guns we use for hunting certain animals shoot. The body looks different, but they shoot the same way. Semi-automatic guns are not used by any hunters I know and I know quite a few. They hunt turkey, deer, and rabbits. What game does one shoot with semi-automatics? Many hunters I know are switching over to cross-bow hunting because they think that there is more sport in hunting with a bow than a gun. That includes hunters in WV and VA. The rifle my dad used 30+ years ago was a semi-automatic. It looks just like any other hunting rifle. I bet a pretty high percentage of hunting rifles are semi-automatic, particularly ones used for bird hunting.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 2:56:45 GMT
...just because bows are being used for hunting in one area of the country does NOT mean ANYTHING about anywhere else in the country. In my opinion, statements like this are used (maybe unintentionally) to obfuscate the issue under discussion.
Hunting with a gun, in and of itself, is NOT less-sportsmanlike, easy, cheating, or anything of the sort, than any other kind of hunting. I know people who have hunted with a muzzleloader or a pistol; neither of those is 'easy' in any way, shape, or form. And there are PLENTY of people who NEED to hunt for FOOD-- there is no *sport* about it for them. There is a LOT more to the sport of hunting that just what type of weapon is used.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 3:27:15 GMT
Semi-automatic guns are not used by any hunters I know and I know quite a few. They hunt turkey, deer, and rabbits. What game does one shoot with semi-automatics? Many hunters I know are switching over to cross-bow hunting because they think that there is more sport in hunting with a bow than a gun. That includes hunters in WV and VA. The rifle my dad used 30+ years ago was a semi-automatic. It looks just like any other hunting rifle. I bet a pretty high percentage of hunting rifles are semi-automatic, particularly ones used for bird hunting. Okay. Not any of the 20 or so hunters I know use semi-automatics.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 3:31:03 GMT
...just because bows are being used for hunting in one area of the country does NOT mean ANYTHING about anywhere else in the country. In my opinion, statements like this are used (maybe unintentionally) to obfuscate the issue under discussion. Hunting with a gun, in and of itself, is NOT less-sportsmanlike, easy, cheating, or anything of the sort, than any other kind of hunting. I know people who have hunted with a muzzleloader or a pistol; neither of those is 'easy' in any way, shape, or form. And there are PLENTY of people who NEED to hunt for FOOD-- there is no *sport* about it for them. There is a LOT more to the sport of hunting that just what type of weapon is used. ? ? ?
Sorry for sharing my experience with the hunters I know. And in whose kitchens I sit in while they cure venison jerky. And whose venison I feed my family. If you want me to edit my post and remove that, just let me know. I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. I don't hunt, be it with a gun or crossbow - just sharing what my friends and family members tell me about why they like bow-hunting. If you want me to take it down, I will.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 24, 2016 3:38:23 GMT
The rifle my dad used 30+ years ago was a semi-automatic. It looks just like any other hunting rifle. I bet a pretty high percentage of hunting rifles are semi-automatic, particularly ones used for bird hunting. Okay. Not any of the 20 or so hunters I know use semi-automatics. I'm not even sure why this would come up tbh. I've got no clue what any of my cousins or friends use for hunting. Even my BIL who talks a bit about quail hunting doesn't talk about the guns he uses. It just seems to be a rather odd thing to be so emphatic about. Once in a great while I might have heard a bit about the size of ammo - .22 vs 30.06 (not sure how that's actually written). Perhaps as they know I'm not really into hunting or guns we haven't had a whole lot of detailed conversations about their guns.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 3:50:09 GMT
Okay. Not any of the 20 or so hunters I know use semi-automatics. I'm not even sure why this would come up tbh. I've got no clue what any of my cousins or friends use for hunting. Even my BIL who talks a bit about quail hunting doesn't talk about the guns he uses. It just seems to be a rather odd thing to be so emphatic about. Once in a great while I might have heard a bit about the size of ammo - .22 vs 30.06 (not sure how that's actually written). Perhaps as they know I'm not really into hunting or guns we haven't had a whole lot of detailed conversations about their guns. You don't know WV culture, perhaps? They get the whole week of thanksgiving off - school and most companies - in rural WV for the sole purpose of hunting. Weapons used in hunting are a big topic of dinner time conversation. Weapons and gun safes are popular Christmas presents. I don't know why you wouldn't talk about it with family who engage in the sport, tbh.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:54:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 19:15:43 GMT
I said in another thread... The point of that statement is not to say that people don't die when they're shot with a gun. It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead. If the tool doesn't matter, then you don't need to own a gun to protect yourself from "tyranny" or from "bad guys." An ice pick or knife will do. They will be just as dead. That is probably not a great argument because it can easily be flipped to show that one doesn't need a gun to feel safe or defend oneself at all. No, it actually doesn't show that at all. There's a reason guns have been called the great equalizer. It makes a small person equal to a larger threat without having to get near the threat with your "ice pick" and being put at greater risk of being over powered by the threat.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 24, 2016 19:31:34 GMT
Semi-automatic guns are not used by any hunters I know and I know quite a few. They hunt turkey, deer, and rabbits. What game does one shoot with semi-automatics? Many hunters I know are switching over to cross-bow hunting because they think that there is more sport in hunting with a bow than a gun. That includes hunters in WV and VA. The rifle my dad used 30+ years ago was a semi-automatic. It looks just like any other hunting rifle. I bet a pretty high percentage of hunting rifles are semi-automatic, particularly ones used for bird hunting. My BIL hunts and he uses a bow, a rifle and my sister said he also uses a semi- automatic.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 19:34:25 GMT
If the tool doesn't matter, then you don't need to own a gun to protect yourself from "tyranny" or from "bad guys." An ice pick or knife will do. They will be just as dead. That is probably not a great argument because it can easily be flipped to show that one doesn't need a gun to feel safe or defend oneself at all. No, it actually doesn't show that at all. There's a reason guns have been called the great equalizer. It makes a small person equal to a larger threat without having to get near the threat with your "ice pick" and being put at greater risk of being over powered by the threat. But you are the one who said (which is what I responded to): "It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead." If you meant that, then yes, you just said that you don't need a gun to kill your attacker, because the tool doesn't matter. Your words. Not mine. I see you backpedaling and now saying that guns are more proficient killers than other tools. That's your change of words, not mine. You can't both argue that it won't matter if access to guns is controlled because people will be as successful with other tools, and then turn around and say, but but but I need MY gun because it is a more proficient tool/killer than guns. Because the logical conclusion is that all those "bad guys" will be much less successful if limited to those other tools. And it is one of the more nonsensical arguments put forth by gun rights people - all part of the guns don't kill people, people kill people. Then they go on to say that if someone wants to kill you, they will find another way to do so, so it couldn't be the gun, it must be the person. When the truth is that people ARMED WITH GUNS kill people WITH THOSE GUNS.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 19:37:29 GMT
"people ARMED WITH GUNS kill people WITH THOSE GUNS."
ONLY IF THAT IS THEIR INTENT, and NOT ALWAYS, even then.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 19:48:57 GMT
"people ARMED WITH GUNS kill people WITH THOSE GUNS." ONLY IF THAT IS THEIR INTENT, and NOT ALWAYS, even then. No, not only if that is their intent. Talk to all the parents of kids in DC alone whose kids have been murdered because they were caught in cross-fire between fighting parties that have nothing to do with them. Explain that "fact" to all those who have had their kids and family members killed by a child or teen playing with a gun. People armed with guns kill people with those guns - whether they intend to or not; in many, if not most, fatal shootings, the victims wouldn't be dead if the one doing the shooting was armed with another tool, as Gia put it.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 20:00:51 GMT
You stated 'people with guns' which I took to mean 'a person has a gun in their hand' not 'a gun is somewhere around in the area, or just 'people who own guns.' The issue of a child playing with a loaded gun, to me, is NOT what you were intimating with that phrase.
What I meant by my response was the person who was shooting did have the INTENT to injure / kill SOMEONE (thus, they pulled the trigger- and they may or may not have cared that there were other people around); a person in the crossfire is unfortunate, yes, but the person who shot the gun DID have that intent.
I apologize if I mistook your statement to be more specific than you meant it to be.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:54:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 20:21:09 GMT
No, it actually doesn't show that at all. There's a reason guns have been called the great equalizer. It makes a small person equal to a larger threat without having to get near the threat with your "ice pick" and being put at greater risk of being over powered by the threat. But you are the one who said (which is what I responded to): (1st)"It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead." If you meant that, then yes, you just said that you don't need a gun to kill your attacker, because the tool doesn't matter. Nope. Not what I said. At all. Those aren't my words OR the meaning of my words. If you have too rephrase what I said to fit your agenda, then you're not comprehending what is actually being said to you. Let me repeat it for you... (2nd) "There's a reason guns have been called the great equalizer. It makes a small person equal to a larger threat without having to get near the threat with your "ice pick" and being put at greater risk of being over powered by the threat." Now let me explain it to you... The 1st statement you quoted is an explanation about the statement that the blame for a criminal goes on the criminal not the tool. The 2nd shows why your rephrasing of my actual words doesn't have any basis in reality. Like hell they are. If you have too rephrase what I said to fit your agenda, then you're not comprehending what is actually being said to you. No, you actually don't see that. It may be what YOU need to happen to prove your agenda, but that isn't reality.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 20:37:13 GMT
You stated 'people with guns' (which I took to mean 'a person has a gun in their hand' not 'a gun is somewhere around in the area, or just 'people who own guns.' The issue of a child playing with a loaded gun, to me, is NOT what you were intimating what that phrase. What I meant by my response was the person who was shooting did have the INTENT to injure / kill SOMEONE (thus, they pulled the trigger- and they may or may not have cared that there were other people around); a person in the crossfire is unfortunate, yes, but the person who shot the gun DID have that intent. I apologize if I mistook your statement to be more specific than you meant it to be. I really meant it as a general, it is people armed with guns who kill people at a frightening efficient and sometimes even unintended rate and that the whole argument that it is "people who kill people, not guns that kill people" is flawed. If one truly believes that in its most simple form (which no one really does), then it shouldn't matter if we control who has access to guns. The reality is that people-armed-with-guns (NOT separating the two into two entities) are the ones who are shooting and killing others. Even Gia just stated that having a gun is a great advantage to having another weapon if you want to shoot someone. So, the whole argument that it is simply the people and not the weapon doesn't hold up. Given that we have how many pages - 10? 15? - about a child dying by gator at WDW with a variety of people blaming Disney, the number of children killed, unintentionally by guns each year is exponentially greater. In 2015, 265 children picked up guns and shot someone, killing 83 people in the process. That should warrant at least a thousand pages of posts here, but there is hardly a word. How many children accidentally killed by something per year is acceptable to you? To others? If it were ANYTHING other than guns, we would legislate up the wazoo. Look at all the safety requirements we have for cars, including car seat usage, where kids may sit, what car manufacturers MUST provide to keep their passengers safe, licenses, registration, etc. link to an interesting article on Accidental Shootings by Children
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 20:39:19 GMT
Just like there are those who are fooling themselves by arguing that guns don't kill, when guns were manufactured for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill. I said in another thread... The point of that statement is not to say that people don't die when they're shot with a gun. It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead.Your words, not mine. The tool doesn't matter. Your words. No twisting. You said them. It is crystal clear what they mean. Gun = tool. Ice Pick = tool. You said that it doesn't matter if someone with the intent to kill uses one or the other - that is the meaning of "the tool doesn't matter. "
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 20:47:49 GMT
elaine , and @mytnice : I think I have to agree with Gia on this one-- I see it as similar to 'a square is always a rhombus, but a rhombus is not always a square' or to a 'if a=b and b=c then a =c' kind of thing. You're arguing semantics about the meaning of the phrase, not the words themselves. I understand what Gia said as: "if someone wants to kill you they will find a way to do it even if they don't have a gun" which is not how you took it. You took what she said a bit differently than I did and you replied "if that case, if you are confronted with an attacker you therefore does not NEED a gun to defend yourself" which is taking her words and making a connection / supposition out of them that isn't actually written there. I think maybe you're extrapolating from what she said to get to your reply.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 20:54:58 GMT
elaine , and @mytnice : I think I have to agree with Gia on this one-- I see it as similar to 'a square is always a rhombus, but a rhombus is not always a square' or to a 'if a=b and b=c then a =c' kind of thing. You're arguing semantics about the meaning of the phrase, not the words themselves. I understand what Gia said as: "if someone wants to kill you they will find a way to do it even if they don't have a gun" which is not how you took it. You took what she said a bit differently than I did and you replied "if she was confronted with an attacker she therefore does not NEED a gun" which is taking her words and making as supposition out of them that isn't there. I think maybe you're extrapolating from what she said to get to your reply. Gia claims that if someone wants to kill someone (in one case it may be your attacker), one can do it without a gun, because the tool doesn't matter and you can find a way to kill them regardless. And if you then make the argument that she/you/anyone needs a gun, then you are saying that the tool DOES MATTER. Because, let's face it, of course the tool does matter. And guns are much more proficient killers than any other tool. Which is why people want gun control. To say we don't need gun control legislation because killers will use any other tool just as efficiently and kill as many people is complete and utter BS, which is my point. If guns are better killing self-defense tools for people being attacked, then they are also more effective killing tools for everyone, including "bad guys." You can't logically claim the tool doesn't make a difference in one breath, and then turn around and say in the next one that it does. I thought my point was clear, but maybe now it is.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:54:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 20:55:34 GMT
I said in another thread... The point of that statement is not to say that people don't die when they're shot with a gun. It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead.Your words, not mine. The tool doesn't matter. Your words. No twisting. You said them. It is crystal clear what they mean. Gun = tool. Ice Pick = tool. You said that it doesn't matter if someone with the intent to kill uses one or the other - that is the meaning of "the tool doesn't matter. " "It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead." doesn't mean "then yes, you just said that you don't need a gun to kill your attacker, because the tool doesn't matter." Especially when I said "There's a reason guns have been called the great equalizer. It makes a small person equal to a larger threat without having to get near the threat with your "ice pick" and being put at greater risk of being over powered by the threat."
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 21:05:25 GMT
Your words, not mine. The tool doesn't matter. Your words. No twisting. You said them. It is crystal clear what they mean. Gun = tool. Ice Pick = tool. You said that it doesn't matter if someone with the intent to kill uses one or the other - that is the meaning of "the tool doesn't matter. " "It's to say that if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead." doesn't mean "then yes, you just said that you don't need a gun to kill your attacker, because the tool doesn't matter." Especially when I said "There's a reason guns have been called the great equalizer. It makes a small person equal to a larger threat without having to get near the threat with your "ice pick" and being put at greater risk of being over powered by the threat." In one sentence you say that any tool will be just as effective in killing and in the next you are saying that guns are much better killing tools than ice picks etc. Why? Why does intent to kill negate the deadliness of guns in one case, but not in the other. I think those being attacked are just as motivated to kill their attacker. Guns are killing tools. They do it more efficiently than anything else. They have no other purpose beyond maybe some sport - skeet shooting. I include hunting as killing, but see it as justifiable killing with a purpose. To pretend that someone intent on killing others will be able to kill as many or anyone as efficiently with any other tool is pure propaganda. Gun control is all about keeping guns out of the hands of the "attackers" so that less damage will be done. I'm glad that you now understand why people want to control who has access to them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 15:54:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 21:07:53 GMT
elaine , and @mytnice : I think I have to agree with Gia on this one-- I see it as similar to 'a square is always a rhombus, but a rhombus is not always a square' or to a 'if a=b and b=c then a =c' kind of thing. You're arguing semantics about the meaning of the phrase, not the words themselves. I understand what Gia said as: "if someone wants to kill you they will find a way to do it even if they don't have a gun" which is not how you took it. You took what she said a bit differently than I did and you replied "if she was confronted with an attacker she therefore does not NEED a gun" which is taking her words and making as supposition out of them that isn't there. I think maybe you're extrapolating from what she said to get to your reply. You can't logically claim the tool doesn't make a difference in one breath, and then turn around and say in the next one that it does.
This is where the misunderstanding is. My first statement is not commenting on the effectiveness of the tool, it's saying the blame for a criminal goes on the criminal -not the tool. And the other statement is saying why it's more effective to protect yourself with a gun than an ice pick.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 21:08:42 GMT
It really is two separate things that you both are saying. here are the two statements:
1) Gia: if someone wants to kill, the tool doesn't matter, you're still going to be just as dead.
2) Elaine: then yes, you just said that you don't need a gun to kill your attacker, because the tool doesn't matter."
-------------------------------------------------------------
the bolded part of what you wrote, Elaine, was NOT actually IN Gia's statement. You added it to make what she said mean something different.
--otherwise, I think you'll have to just agree to disagree.
|
|