|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 21:11:34 GMT
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. But you can't logically separate the tool from the individual using it in one case and not in the other. If the tool is more effective used by one person, it is more effective used by the other person.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 24, 2016 21:13:59 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. WOW! I have spoken to a great many hunters and a great many use semi-automatic rifles to hunt with. Deer and boar are probably the biggest game around my area. My late husband was tusked by a wild boar when he shot it BETWEEN THE EYES with a crossbow. If it weren't for other hunters he was with, he may not have made it home at all since they kept the boar from turning back and hurting him more. The arrow remained embedded in the skull, fwiw.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 14:05:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 21:14:06 GMT
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. But you can't logically separate the tool from the individual using it in one case and not in the other. If the tool is more effective used by one person, it is more effective used by the other person. I didn't. My first statement is not commenting on the effectiveness of the tool.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 21:21:16 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. Yes, because if you, the one being attacked, want to kill the other person (your attacker), it logically follows that the tool doesn't matter. The statement is "If one is motivated to kill (in this case I want to kill the person trying to attack my child), any tool will do, he'll be just as dead." You can't just decide willy-nilly that only one side is motivated to kill - in this case, I would actually be more motivated than my son's attacker. To say that an ice-pick would be just as effective at killing him is stupid. And to somehow ignore the deadliness of the tool - no matter WHOSE hands it is in, is BS. Guns are more deadly regardless of who is motivated to hurt whom and the whole "any tool will do" is silly.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jun 24, 2016 21:22:29 GMT
But you can't logically separate the tool from the individual using it in one case and not in the other. If the tool is more effective used by one person, it is more effective used by the other person. I didn't. My first statement is not commenting on the effectiveness of the tool. When you say "any tool will do" you are equalizing all tools - guns and ice picks and knives.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 14:05:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 22:26:17 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. crimsoncat05, thank you for getting it and saying so.
|
|