How stupid. I can't believe you actually subscribe to that bullshit "blame the gun" nonsense. We don't do that. And you know it. We blame gun availability to unfit and dangerous people. We blame people like you who push for lax or non-existent laws that allow unfit and dangerous people to have access. But saying "we blame the gun" is a transparent and stupid attempt to semantically twist the meaning of what we actually do say, which is clear to everyone.
I'm not the one denying something, you are. When I, or any gun control person, uses the word "gun" in certain contexts, it clearly means "gun availability" or "guns in the hands of people" or something along those lines. We simply say "guns" for brevity's sake and because we presume that everyone is arguing in good faith. But, it seems, that's where we go wrong. You don't argue in good faith, You grasp at every simple and off-topic piece of minutia you can in order to derail the point of the thread and make it as tedious as possible. The denial on your part is a disingenuous, lying attempt at pretending you don't understand what is meant by obvious expressions like "guns do more harm than good."
If you had a decent argument, Kurt, you wouldn't have to make such efforts as these grasping at straws.
Given the numbers from the National Academies of Science and so forth, I will say that guns do at least as much good as harm, when it comes to accidents, suicides, and homicides on the one hand and self-defense uses on the other. And that's not including all the other forms of good--hunting, collecting, competitions, mechanical skills, and so forth--that guns allow.
I'm not the one denying something, you are. When I, or any gun control person, uses the word "gun" in certain contexts, it clearly means "gun availability" or "guns in the hands of people" or something along those lines.
Check it out, guys--he admits to regularly saying something other than he means, and then calls me the liar.
Greg said, "guns do at least as much good as harm"
I'm afraid Kurt would have no idea what you mean by that, but I do and I disagree. As you've been shown many times, even the most careful tallies of DGUs are done through rough estimates based on telephone interviews. These include everything from self-aggrandizing gun owners who exaggerate their bravado to those who shoot at snakes in the back yard. On the other hand the harm done with guns is a matter of record, half-a-million crimes committed and half-a-million guns stolen EACH YEAR, to name just two things.
Ask yourself why Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 / 100,000 with hardly any guns at all, and Ireland's is 11.9 and Canada's is 11.5, though both nations have strict gun control. This picture is mixing and matching numbers, coming to a bogus conclusion.
Well since knives do kill more than guns, and I would loosely fit ice picks in the same category knives, where is your outrage for no restrictions on them?
Actually, guns, being inherently harmless, kill no one, anywhere. It's like the lady says.
ReplyDeleteHow stupid. I can't believe you actually subscribe to that bullshit "blame the gun" nonsense. We don't do that. And you know it. We blame gun availability to unfit and dangerous people. We blame people like you who push for lax or non-existent laws that allow unfit and dangerous people to have access. But saying "we blame the gun" is a transparent and stupid attempt to semantically twist the meaning of what we actually do say, which is clear to everyone.
DeleteSo now you deny saying, over and over, and over, and over again that "guns do more harm than good"? Good luck with that denial.
DeleteNote that I did not quote you saying "people with guns do more harm than good"--it's the guns that are, according to you, doing harm.
If that's not "blaming the gun," which word are you defining differently from English speakers--"harm," or "blame"?
I'm not the one denying something, you are. When I, or any gun control person, uses the word "gun" in certain contexts, it clearly means "gun availability" or "guns in the hands of people" or something along those lines. We simply say "guns" for brevity's sake and because we presume that everyone is arguing in good faith. But, it seems, that's where we go wrong. You don't argue in good faith, You grasp at every simple and off-topic piece of minutia you can in order to derail the point of the thread and make it as tedious as possible. The denial on your part is a disingenuous, lying attempt at pretending you don't understand what is meant by obvious expressions like "guns do more harm than good."
DeleteIf you had a decent argument, Kurt, you wouldn't have to make such efforts as these grasping at straws.
Given the numbers from the National Academies of Science and so forth, I will say that guns do at least as much good as harm, when it comes to accidents, suicides, and homicides on the one hand and self-defense uses on the other. And that's not including all the other forms of good--hunting, collecting, competitions, mechanical skills, and so forth--that guns allow.
DeleteI'm not the one denying something, you are. When I, or any gun control person, uses the word "gun" in certain contexts, it clearly means "gun availability" or "guns in the hands of people" or something along those lines.
DeleteCheck it out, guys--he admits to regularly saying something other than he means, and then calls me the liar.
Priceless.
Greg said, "guns do at least as much good as harm"
DeleteI'm afraid Kurt would have no idea what you mean by that, but I do and I disagree. As you've been shown many times, even the most careful tallies of DGUs are done through rough estimates based on telephone interviews. These include everything from self-aggrandizing gun owners who exaggerate their bravado to those who shoot at snakes in the back yard. On the other hand the harm done with guns is a matter of record, half-a-million crimes committed and half-a-million guns stolen EACH YEAR, to name just two things.
I'm afraid Kurt would have no idea what you mean by that . . .
DeleteYou should've stopped after the words in bold type. ;-)
Mikeb, if you want to deny facts, I can't help you.
DeleteI can't believe you actually subscribe to that bullshit "blame the gun" nonsense. We don't do that.
DeleteI guess Dog Gone didn't get the memo about "gun control" advocates not blaming the gun, eh?
Blame the gun AND the person with the gun.
WITHOUT the gun, far fewer problems.
You guys really ought to coordinate better. You'd still be spouting stupid bullshit, but at least it would be coordinated stupid bullshit.
I'm sure the gun loons will call your stats bogus.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself why Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 / 100,000 with hardly any guns at all, and Ireland's is 11.9 and Canada's is 11.5, though both nations have strict gun control. This picture is mixing and matching numbers, coming to a bogus conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIt proves guns are the choice of weapon, not an ice pick, a rope, a car, gas, or any other deadly weapon.
DeleteDoes it really matter about the choice of weapons? Dead is dead.
DeleteIf ice picks were killing 33,000 people a year, yes, I would consider putting restrictions on ice picks.
DeleteWell since knives do kill more than guns, and I would loosely fit ice picks in the same category knives, where is your outrage for no restrictions on them?
DeletePlease cite your sources that knives kill 33,000 people a year.
DeleteGuns kill?
ReplyDeleteHow many guns have been arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison?
epic logic fail