A Hilarious Way to Protest Guns on Campus (Page 2): 100% Of motor vehicle accident fatalities involve motor vehicles. Paul stepped in it here! 100% Of choking on spinach fatalities...

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Super Dave wrote:

100% of drownings involve water. That doesn't mean people fill their swimming pools with the intention on drowning people in them.

100% Of motor vehicle accident fatalities involve motor vehicles. Paul stepped in it here! 100% Of choking on spinach fatalities involve spinach. Need I go on?

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

archie bunker wrote:

100% Of motor vehicle accident fatalities involve motor vehicles. Paul stepped in it here! 100% Of choking on spinach fatalities involve spinach. Need I go on?

Since I meant my post only to be a light moment of hilarity, I probably should have avoided this thread of discussion entirely.

In any case, I think you have all missed my point, or perhaps I did a poor job of conveying it.

My comment about firearm fatalities was meant only to be connected to the topic of guns being constructed purposefully to cause harm. They were not designed to surprise, nor to confuse, nor to cast an invisible forcefield around their possessor. They were designed specifically to do harm when used.

I did not address motive or purpose of the USERS of guns at all; that is another discussion entirely.

So the comparisons to motor vehicles (designed to convey us from one place to another), spinach (designed it seems to give us Popeye biceps) or water (designed to sustain life or splash into good bourbon) are meaningless in the context of my comments.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Super Dave wrote:

It was quiet funny.

But it was a demonstration against the one of my freedoms under the Bill of Rights. Surely you expected that the intent of the demonstration might be discussed.

Dave -
I have no expectations, control, nor desire to control how you react to a post. That is your responsibility and privilege, and as you know I support freedom of speech with a passion, especially here on OPP.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

archie bunker wrote:

100% Of motor vehicle accident fatalities involve motor vehicles. Paul stepped in it here! 100% Of choking on spinach fatalities involve spinach. Need I go on?

It was a glib response he made. One I'm sure he regrets

Morgan

archie bunker wrote:

100% Of motor vehicle accident fatalities involve motor vehicles. Paul stepped in it here! 100% Of choking on spinach fatalities involve spinach. Need I go on?

The part that seems to be the difference here is that a pool(water),spinach, or cars are not WEAPONS!!!Geeeez how do you guys go through reasoning in life? How many times does a person who has a gun pick it up with the full INTENTION to do someone harm, stop this idiot debate.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Morgan wrote:

The part that seems to be the difference here is that a pool(water),spinach, or cars are not WEAPONS!!!Geeeez how do you guys go through reasoning in life? How many times does a person who has a gun pick it up with the full INTENTION to do someone harm, stop this idiot debate.

Ask the people in Nice, France if a motor vehicle is a weapon. If water isn't a weapon, why do rioting blacks take issue with being backed off with water cannnons? Anything can be used as a weapon.

Morgan

archie bunker wrote:

Ask the people in Nice, France if a motor vehicle is a weapon. If water isn't a weapon, why do rioting blacks take issue with being backed off with water cannnons? Anything can be used as a weapon.

And people always seem to manage pound a square peg into a round hole. They manage to twist anything to rationalize their their perspective even when beyond logic

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

archie bunker wrote:

Ask the people in Nice, France if a motor vehicle is a weapon. If water isn't a weapon, why do rioting blacks take issue with being backed off with water cannnons? Anything can be used as a weapon.

Archie, my friend, go back up and read my earlier post in reply to your comment about cars and spinach.

Yes, anything can be used as a weapon, even a dildo!
But guns were created specifically as a weapon, and that is the only point I am arguing here.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Morgan wrote:

The part that seems to be the difference here is that a pool(water),spinach, or cars are not WEAPONS!!!Geeeez how do you guys go through reasoning in life? How many times does a person who has a gun pick it up with the full INTENTION to do someone harm, stop this idiot debate.

Have you ever held a gun?

If you answer:
"Yes", who did you intend to harm? Why?
"No", them you have no idea what you're talking about.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Super Dave wrote:

Have you ever held a gun?

If you answer:
"Yes", who did you intend to harm? Why?
"No", them you have no idea what you're talking about.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

You might heed your own advice on this one Dave.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

PaulPisces wrote:

You might heed your own advice on this one Dave.

Hardly. I've owned many guns and have never ever intended to harm anyone.

I also have a cancer policy, but I don't intend to get cancer.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

PP

Have you ever held a gun?

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Super Dave wrote:

Hardly. I've owned many guns and have never ever intended to harm anyone.

I also have a cancer policy, but I don't intend to get cancer.

Your intent, or anyone else's, is not the question here.
It is the intent of the design of the gun itself, which is to do harm.

Let's say hypothetically that one never actually intends to harm anyone, but only keeps a gun to wave at intruders to scare them off.
It is the understood power of the gun to do harm that gives the waving of said gun any power to scare anyone at all.

And yes I have held a gun. But I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion in any way.

I certainly hope you never get cancer, but that is a spurious comparison.
But it could of course be construed to support the limitation of guns. You have the policy because you fear you might get cancer. Should we similarly limit guns ownership because we fear we might get shot?

Little Ball of Hate

PaulPisces wrote:

Your intent, or anyone else's, is not the question... (show quote)

Bottom line. A gun is TOOL. That's all it is. It can be used for target practice, hunting, or to defend yourself against a bad guy with a gun. Your claim that it is intended for only one purpose is simply ludicrous. Guns do not kill people. People do that. It is not the guns fault, so quit blaming the guns, and place the blame where it really belongs. It is a fact that gun control laws have no impact on violent crime. Criminals do not obey gun laws. And even if they can't get a gun, they will find another way to kill. Banning guns because others use them to commit murder is like getting a vasectomy because your neighbors have too many kids.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Little Ball of Hate wrote:

Bottom line. A gun is TOOL. That's all it is. It ... (show quote)

LBOH, your attempt at diversion has been a waste of your time.
My post addressed none of the issues you bring up nor was it intended to.
The hijackers of my post about a funny stunt are trying to lure me into a discussion about gun rights/control, which I have no intention of doing.

I agree 100% that a gun is a tool. That tool's design, functionality and working parts were designed for one thing and one thing only: to do harm. Harm to a target, harm to a deer, harm to anyone and anything at which it is fired. It was not designed to provide a light show, it was not designed to provide music at a dance. It was not designed to clear the driveway of snow. It was designed to do harm, whether or not the user plans to take advantage of its design.

I have never blamed the gun. I'm simply pointing out the purpose of its design.