10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[Brendan]

Did she actually fire it? That’s a big round (and loud indoors!) for such a little girl.

Yes she did. It’s actually a 22LR.

She spend most of the evening with her Cricket 22

Not as much fun for her, but substantially easier on my wallet. Even 22LR is expensive these days

 

[Brendan]

And THERE you are falling for the liberal media hype. In America you must have a special permit from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms branch to own “military standard weapons” (ie: large caliber, automatic, explosive, incendiary, tracer, etc).
.

What I find amusing is that we also need similar BATF approval for suppressors ( aka ‘silencers’); while my cousins in Ireland can purchase them off the shelf at most good sporting goods stores.

 

[Rich_C]

Yes she did. It’s actually a 22LR.

She spend most of the evening with her Cricket 22

Not as much fun for her, but substantially easier on my wallet. Even 22LR is expensive these days

Nice. That’s were we plan to start later this year. Probably the Ruger.

 

[tabycat]

As I mentioned to others here in this thread, go to Google and search the keywords “guns households homicide” and pick a study or article that you like. It’s an unrealistic “paranoia” to believe that they are all fraudulent.

Public health and public policy institutions rely heavily on these types of studies. No experimental methods are possible.

LOVE!

“No experimental methods are possible.” Which make many of there studies not very reliable.

 

[Robert_Sock]

tabycat:
“No experimental methods are possible.” Which make many of there studies not very reliable.

How so? The studies have been shown to be reliable by obtaining similar results time and time again.

LOVE!

 

[tabycat]

How so? The studies have been shown to be reliable by obtaining similar results time and time again.

LOVE!

And by using the same/similar numbers time after time and by leaving out things that would give different results.

 

[jmcrae]

It all just comes over as ‘off’ to outsiders. A year and a half ago, we were horror struck by the 20 cute little 7 and unders whose lives were ended while they innocently sat at their desks learning things to give them a future filled with potential and achieved goals and dreams. Not only is the gun culture not to be questioned, but it is to be promoted and esteemed. You must see the dissociation that is occurring here?

I agree. There are very few Canadian seven-year-olds packing heat, either.

There are a few 12 year olds, who live on farms, who keep a rifle to keep predators away from the livestock, but kids in the city play with dolls, trucks, hoops, and water toys.

 

[Robert_Sock]

And by using the same/similar numbers time after time and by leaving out things that would give different results.

But they come from different data sets.

Again, unless one concludes that households in general are at risk for unwanted negative consequences involving gun ownership, you might as well reject all of science.

LOVE!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There is not a class of people called “criminals.” A “criminal” is a person who is in the process of committing a crime. Anyone can do this - there’s no school one attends, and no pattern of DNA, that makes one person a “criminal” and someone else not.

We are all potentially criminals - all it takes is to break the law. And if anyone who hasn’t yet been caught breaking the law can own a gun, then you already have a great many criminals owning guns - they just haven’t yet committed their crimes.

By that line of reasoning…you would have to admit that your Mother is potentially a prostitute and should be arrested before she can possibly commit a crime and harm society.

 

[po18guy]

What does an inanimate object, morally neutral, have to do with “social justice”? Are we demonizing inanimate objects? Yes, we are. When we do that, emotion trumps logic.

What if, in every TV show, movie and video murder, the camera focused on the human heart - the source of every evil? No gunshots, just bad blood dripping from evil hearts.

(AP) "Chicago store clerk wounded by evil heart in robbery attempt"

Would we then demonize and seek to control and outlaw hearts? Would we then look down our noses at those who had hearts?

Or, should we seek to change those hearts by evidencing and practicing love, which also comes from the same heart?

 

[tabycat]

But they come from different data sets.

Again, unless one concludes that households in general are at risk for unwanted negative consequences involving gun ownership, you might as well reject all of science.

LOVE!

Most things people do can have unwanted negative consequences. You can walk across a street/sidewalk and get hit by a car, truck, or becycle; does that mean that I can prove that walking down a street or sidewalk is deadly? By using the number of people killed and hurt by cars, if you reject the there numbers do you reject ‘all of science’? Remember, we are talk about a ‘soft’ science, not a ‘hard’ science.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What does an inanimate object, morally neutral, have to do with “social justice”? Are we demonizing inanimate objects? Yes, we are. When we do that, emotion trumps logic.

What if, in every TV show, movie and video murder, the camera focused on the human heart - the source of every evil? No gunshots, just bad blood dripping from evil hearts.

Would we then demonize and seek to control and outlaw hearts? Would we then look down our noses at those who had hearts?

Or, should we seek to change those hearts by evidencing and practicing love, which also comes from the same heart?

Social justice is to see, and try to prevent, the potential negative consequences of guns, which owners are often unaware.

LOVE!

 

[jmcrae]

By that line of reasoning…you would have to admit that your Mother is potentially a prostitute and should be arrested before she can possibly commit a crime and harm society.

I’m not proposing arresting people for crimes they haven’t committed, but surely there is a line of common sense, to realize that no one is perfect, and everyone experiences temptation - and that the more temptation you put in someone’s way, the more likely they are to fall into it, no matter how nice they are, usually, and no matter how much you happen to love them.

 

[tabycat]

What does an inanimate object, morally neutral, have to do with “social justice”? Are we demonizing inanimate objects? Yes, we are. When we do that, emotion trumps logic.

What if, in every TV show, movie and video murder, the camera focused on the human heart - the source of every evil? No gunshots, just bad blood dripping from evil hearts.

Would we then demonize and seek to control and outlaw hearts? Would we then look down our noses at those who had hearts?

Or, should we seek to change those hearts by evidencing and practicing love, which also comes from the same heart?

 

[jmcrae]

Most things people do can have unwanted negative consequences. You can walk across a street/sidewalk and get hit by a car, truck, or becycle; does that mean that I can prove that walking down a street or sidewalk is deadly? By using the number of people killed and hurt by cars, if you reject the there numbers do you reject ‘all of science’? Remember, we are talk about a ‘soft’ science, not a ‘hard’ science.

And again, let’s look at the function of cars vs. the function of guns.

It is not the function of a car to kill people. Its function is to get people safely from one place to another.

It is the function of a gun to kill people.

If you don’t kill the person you are shooting at, you are using the gun incorrectly.

However, if you do get from point A to point B in your car without killing anyone, then you have used your car correctly.

What I mean to say is, when people are killed with guns, this is not an “unexpected, unwanted negative consequence” - rather, this is the expected and desirable outcome of using a gun. Again - if someone doesn’t end up dead, then you have used the gun incorrectly.

 

[tabycat]

Social justice is to see, and try to prevent, the potential negative consequences of guns, which owners are often unaware.

LOVE!

How about seeing and trying to prevent the potential negative consequences of knives, cars, swords, acid, and drugs? Before you post that these things are not ment to ‘kill’, stop and think of how you would tell a young couple that their child is dead because someone has hit and run over their child with a car, or cut the child’s throat. :newidea:

 

[Rich_C]

And again, let’s look at the function of cars vs. the function of guns.

It is not the function of a car to kill people. Its function is to get people safely from one place to another.

It is the function of a gun to kill people.

If you don’t kill the person you are shooting at, you are using the gun incorrectly.

However, if you do get from point A to point B in your car without killing anyone, then you have used your car correctly.

What I mean to say is, when people are killed with guns, this is not an “unexpected, unwanted negative consequence” - rather, this is the expected and desirable outcome of using a gun. Again - if someone doesn’t end up dead, then you have used the gun incorrectly.

But it’s not the function of a gun to kill people randomly, anymore than it’s the function of a car to drive randomly from point to point.

Therefore, we should say it’s the function of a legally-owned gun to shoot what its owner intends, just like it’s the function of a legally-owned automobile to travel where its owner intends.

If a legally-owned gun hits a lawful target, I’d say that’s either morally neutral (deer or paper target) or good (criminal who is a imminent threat to life and limb).

A legally-owned gun hitting something else is a case of not functioning properly, and illegally-owned guns are beyond the immediate purvue of a public policy discussion. Then it’s a law enforcement discussion.

 

[po18guy]

Social justice is to see, and try to prevent, the potential negative consequences of guns, which owners are often unaware.

LOVE!

According to whom?

My definition of social justice is to prevent apparently well-meaning do-gooders from relieving me of the ability to defend my family from the meth-heads who live nearby. When I succumb to the “social justice” impulse and turn my weapons in (kitchen knives, shovels, hammers, screwdrivers and rocks), will you bring your scissors to help defend us?

Another thought: Since you are a potential murderer, should you be locked up? My family will feel safer, whether they actually are or not. Fair enough?

It’s all about feelings.

 

[jmcrae]

But it’s not the function of a gun to kill people randomly, anymore than it’s the function of a car to drive randomly from point to point.

Right.

The difference is still that when you obtain a gun, you have someone in mind that you mean to kill (who is also someone’s loved one, even if they deserve killing, in your opinion) whereas when you buy a car, you aren’t thinking of killing anyone; you are thinking of getting safely from place to place.

 

[Robert_Sock]

According to whom?

My definition of social justice is to prevent apparently well-meaning do-gooders from relieving me of the ability to defend my family from the meth-heads who live nearby. When I succumb to the “social justice” impulse and turn my weapons in (kitchen knives, shovels, hammers, screwdrivers and rocks), will you bring your scissors to help defend us?

Another thought: Since you are a potential murderer, should you be locked up? My family will feel safer, whether they actually are or not. Fair enough?

It’s all about feelings.

When did this thread become a gun debate? The thread has to with educating people on the increased risks that go along with gun ownership.

LOVE!