Diuretic
Permanently confused
Why?
See my previous response.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Why?
so if the rate at which something is owned per capita defines obsession I guess we need to add, toasters, toothbrushes, socks, underwear, you know other things that damn near everyone has to the list of things we're 'obsessed' with.
An automatic weapon obviously can do more damage in a shorter period of time than a rifle that needs a bolt action to be worked. If my neighbour went postal then I would have a better chance of survival if he didn't have an automatic weapon.
Note - I can see there have been a number of posts on this and this one is going to look out of the stream of discussion, sorry about that, time zones, I'm working my way through.
That doesn't explain why I'm wrong. You're argument was the purpose of gun is to kill. It most clearly isn't, yet you say I'm wrong.
Another of my general philosphies is that I don't see the point in restricting a person from doing something that doesn't effect anyone else.
It gets back to my point that it makes far more sense to apply laws to people rather than things.
You simply owning a nuke in of itself doesn't effect anyone. What YOU (you being person, not an inanimate object) choose to do with it could very well have adverse effect on people. But you of course would have to blame the nuke, not your decision on how to use it.
America owns more of each of those things per capita than any other country?
Really?
What makes you think that?
Again tryig to wiggle out of your original argument. You originally attempted to prove that we are gun obsessed by citing the per capita number of guns owned in the country as if someone rate of ownership equals a mental obsession with it. As your article points out many American's owning guns. Ownership does not equal obsession. Even if every person in the U.S. had one and there were none in the rest of teh world you still couldn't make the case that we are obsessed.
Doesn't matter the weapon no matter the type, is only as dangerous as the person using it. If your neighbor is an expert marksman that goes postal you're probably fucked either way. If he happens to be blind as a bat I'd put my odds on you regardless of the weapon he had.
Again the point is the person using the weapon, not the weapon itself determines the purpose and how dangerous it is.
Obviously the purpose comes, mostly, from what the object is. A nukes purpose is to kill mass amounts of people.
I think the VT shooter owning guns effected a number of other people.
Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.
Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.
The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.
Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.
The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.
Germany, April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.
OOPS! I guess we shouldn't let any facts get in the way of some poster's assertions....
By the way, the BBC provided these little tidbits. Guess its that European gun culture.
Hmmm...not 15 years ago but does anyone remember Mr. David Gray's Aramoana Massacre? New Zealand gun culture....
You really can't wrap you're head around this can you. What does a nuke do? it makes a big huge explosion. Somene - A FUCKING LIVING, BREATHING, THINING PERSON, DO YOU GET IT YET - decided that would be a real effective way of killing a lot of people. All by itself a nuke makes a big explosion and if the history of our planet showed that we liked setting of nukes to see how big a hole we could make you would not make the argument that it's purpose was to kill people. Why? because A PERSON decided that's what he wanted a nukes purpose to be.
Wow that one went right over your head I guess. Him owning a gun didn't effect anyone. Him decideing the PURPOSE for which he CHOSE to use it did.
I remember reading about it, I think it was in the 1950s. I think there was a film made about it too. Not the actions of a rational man. But you haven't mentioned Martin Bryant yet.
My point is that murder by firearm does not a gun culture make.
This particular murder occurred in 1990. As you say, most murders are not the actions of a rational man....if they were rational they would not resort to murder.
I purposely did not want to list a long litany of gun murders for Europe (and/or New Zealand...Constable Duncan, etc.). I merely wanted to point out that the "statistics" on gun murders in those aforementioned countries over the past 15 years was (according to Dr. G...zero) is clearly wrong. Either by intent or ignorance, the poster was misleading his opposition in the discussion.
Thats the ONLY PURPOSE OF IT. Yes, I'm aware that a human is involved in setting it off. No shit, sherlock. The point is that we allow humans some things and not others based NOT ON THE HUMANS, BUT ON THE OBJECTS THEMSELVES. This is an obvious truism, since even a nutter like you wouldn't recommend giving nukes to everyone. THEREFORE, you've already given that objects can be regulated because of their purpose and abilities.
Really? So kindly explain how he would have killed all those people without a gun. A knife maybe? Karate? Please do tell.
Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.
Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.
The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.
Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.
The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.
Germany, April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.
OOPS! I guess we shouldn't let any facts get in the way of some poster's assertions....
By the way, the BBC provided these little tidbits. Guess its that European gun culture.
Hmmm...not 15 years ago but does anyone remember Mr. David Gray's Aramoana Massacre? New Zealand gun culture....
My point is that murder by firearm does not a gun culture make.
This particular murder occurred in 1990. As you say, most murders are not the actions of a rational man....if they were rational they would not resort to murder.
I purposely did not want to list a long litany of gun murders for Europe (and/or New Zealand...Constable Duncan, etc.). I merely wanted to point out that the "statistics" on gun murders in those aforementioned countries over the past 15 years was (according to Dr. G...zero) is clearly wrong. Either by intent or ignorance, the poster was misleading his opposition in the discussion.
My stats specifically mentioned schools. If you can find mass shootings at schools in those countries I mentioned please do so. Nothing misleading about it.
For some reason you gunnies love your guns but refuse to believe you have a gun culture. You do. is that a good thing? IMO no. SHoulda gone the way of the Wild West. IYO, yes, it is your right. have at it. This is just a discussion where people have varying views. Those are mine and they are what they are, as are yours. But please don't tell me that guns don't kill people or that cars should be outlawed. Just a strawman, vacuous argument..