At least part of it's probably because outside Toronto there's generally a decent ratio of road/car, lots of space to be reckless. Also maybe Canadian liquor is secretly watered down.
Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster
- Thread starter Xelor
- Start date
At least part of it's probably because outside Toronto there's generally a decent ratio of road/car, lots of space to be reckless. Also maybe Canadian liquor is secretly watered down.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
A fair number of recruits I dealt with had to be taught to kill. I think it's the same with the general public, people either shoot without thinking or hesitate to shoot at all (with a thin middle zone, of course).
A great example of my point. Guns are designed to kill. That's why you use them to kill people and animals instead of a spoon, or a hammer.
In the US, roads in empty rural regions have high per capita fatality rates - including what appear to be cryptic suicides. There's a desperation factor, in the feel of things. If it carried over into firearms, would anyone be surprised?
That's not courageous, imho.
Which would people prefer: packing a side arm or a smart phone?
And hunting is OK in my books. I don't do it cause sniper rifles are illegal, I'm not a butcher, and I live in the city.
And hunting is OK in my books. I don't do it cause sniper rifles are illegal, I'm not a butcher, and I live in the city.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Most people carry either one in a holster or pocket. If someone confronts the carrier by pointing a gun at them the carrier will give up the phone or the gun. A concealed carry license doesn't endow anyone with precognition or eyes in the back of their head.
That's why folks have to be intelligent, to read the landscape and assess dangers before making a fatal mistake.
I have no doubt that you can find something to argue with there, so forge ahead. All I can say is that I'm still alive. I have my doubts about you...
I have no doubt that you can find something to argue with there, so forge ahead. All I can say is that I'm still alive. I have my doubts about you...
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I used to kill people for $8.27/day. I'm still alive. Many of them are not. You may doubt that, but it wouldn't matter in the least if you did.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Don't make any difference in what, exactly? And of course your opinion doesn't matter, why should it?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Ping pong, great game.
If personally destroying elements in our lives that are perceived to threaten our security and sense of well being is to be advocated as acceptable social behavior, then we all are free to exercise that right.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
What year was that?
I didn't start off with "A Rabbi, a Priest and a pedophile are riding a Harley sportster..." did I?
I do, yes. You may even make that argument for the military and cops...
but it's limited to the individual, reasons for sport shooting and also subjective.
I don't see all those hyper-accurate olympian target shooters slaughtering people left and right, nor are the bulk of target shooters using their skills to eradicate the local dissenting populace who didn't serve them fast enough, etc.
Most target shooters I know don't even hunt.
about the only thing they kill is time, paper targets and the mood of the room when you just want to sight in your hunting rifle and they're going to expound on all the minor problems with your stance, target aquisition or some other idiotic minor detail that means jack sh*t in field conditions that vary from hollow to peak, etc
1- my country is known for much more than mas shootings and gun violence. are you being selective on purpose...oh, right. nevermind. forgot who I was talking to
2- the problem is not simple, as already demonstrated. repeatedly.
3- ignoring the problem of violence for the sake of a fear based emotional ban on a tool doesn't fix anything and violates rights for no reason
only in your eyes, and that perspective is based on your own bias and fears
if that is the case, why are hammers used? fists? clubs? cars? poison? etc
a gun may well allow one to do it quickly and efficiently, but it's just a tool. intent still requires the users input.
more to the point: it's not always the weapon of choice or efficiency, as noted in the crime stats on homicide
special note for you to read: notice that there is a section on Hate Crime?
nope
I'm not making an appeal to emotions or fears, and it's technically correct.
repeating it doesn't make it truer - that is for religions and other emotional or faith-based arguments
not even going to make a comment about where I would rate your post
also - it's not relevant
repetition doesn't make you right
and just because you're a fanatical believer in it doesn't mean I will be. especially since the whole of your argument is to repeat your claims until capitulation while denigrating the poster as being a coward just because they can't see your delusion like you can
To use your own words back at you: As I suggested, you will not acknowledge the obvious. As it would take courage to do so. A courage you lack.
at this point, you're really just trolling
to repeat: a gun, in and of itself, is inanimate and cannot threaten, commit anything or be violent unless or until a user decides, by making a conscious decision and effort of will, to utilise said tool in a manner which can be construed as, defined as or is explicitly stated by the user as being threatening, violent or to commit an act (any act).
for you and Bells because
legally, a gun is a firearm
a firearm is:
no description of killing or intent in any way described... but wait, I know you will latch onto the word "destructive"
a destructive device is:
notice that not once is the word "kill" mentioned?
notice that in no way, shape or form is any intention mentioned in the description?
notice that my argument is re-worded in the text?
a gun is a mechanical tool that can deliver a projectile (or round) and fits the legal description above
it's not violent because that requires intent
almost every bit of both of your arguments requires human interaction, be it target shooting for a purpose of killing or advocation of violence simply because I am pro-gun.
not one of those arguments would hold any water in any US court
Given our history here, I can't speak for your country Bells
AFAIK, even Oz uses Blacks Law Quantum Quack
NOTE: the confusion you seem to have comes from the definition of weapon, but even that requires a user and intent
then please show in the above linked legal descriptions where it states that
Purpose requires intent and human interaction, or the intercession of intelligence and abilities to act upon the tool with conscious intent.
as noted to others, the closest you will come is "weapon" and that still requires a user or person to commit the action (intent and or purpose)
it also broadens the potential object to anything that can be used (see: Bourne movies)
Just because you refuse to actually read the links doesn't mean others are the ones ignoring or denying plain facts
see above, here
most target shooters I know don't use anything but the round concentric circles, excepting clay or metal targets for shotgun or ease of reset, respectively
arguing the intent of a manufacturer or designer, even if they explicitly state something, is irrelevant as it's the user who determines the purpose or intent of a gun
again: see above and links
irrelevant
you can't argue that a gun has a purpose without human interaction (etc, noted above and in links)
the problem doesn't lie within the tool any more than it lies within the local well
Water and fire can also allow someone to kill easily, quickly and in large numbers. I keep making this point over and over and you keep returning to your belief that the purpose or intent is assigned to the tool.
There are millions of gun owners in the US (if not hundreds of millions). There are millions of guns in the US (if not hundreds of millions). The fault is the user, not the gun.
Concentrating on a ban of the tool means the focus is shifted away from personal responsibility, IMHO
not only do the latter not apply at all in any way, the argument is not mealy-mouthed. It is a legal argument supported by the USC and Blacks Law
more to the point: it's not self-serving; it is factually correct
the facts are demonstrated and linked
so... what is it called when a person refuses to accept factual information that remains factual regardless of what they believe?
1- I got to hang around lots of lawyers and judges in my line of work. I won't apologize for it
2- it doesn't matter who likes what. the point is to deliver a functional working plan to disrupt or mitigate violence, regardless of the tool of choice
3- gun advocates aren't taken seriously because so many argue from subjective emotional pleas repeating them ad nauseum like most other fanatics or religions
4- the gun advocates taken seriously tend to be the ones who are at least capable of looking up the law and use it to their advantage while pushing for effective changes
? You mean national parks and big cars and stuff?
That has nothing to do with the US being known for its mass shootings and gun violence, as is relevant to this thread.
That weird mental glitch is very common in your posting - it's a reflex, apparently.
For example, you trotted it out in this thread in response to the contribution of US racial bigotry (and consequent irrational fears and cowardice among the perps in denial) to US gun culture - you pointed to the wide scope of US racial bigotry, how it wasn't specifically limited to gun culture, how racial bigotry was known for much more than its contribution to US gun culture.
It's a really odd pattern of response, and all the obvious explanations involve a sort of defensive flinching, a fear or vulnerability reaction. Likewise with your resort to legalisms and similar irrelevancies.
Chaff, squid-ink, smoke, are the kinds of metaphors immediately suggested.
Last edited: