Monday, January 24, 2011 11:03:42 AM
Instead of your typical self righteous attacks on people who don't believe what you believe Angie, why don`t you give us, in your infinite wisdom, a practical solution to the 273 million guns in this country, 99% of which are privately owned. One that doesn`t discriminate upon people who obey the law and put them at a disadvantage to those who don`t care about the law in the first place.
You going to just ask nicely? Offer a cash for guns program? Yeah, we can afford that...
Or can you show me where my having a gun is the cause of all (or any) of the rape, carjackings, assault (with any weapon, from a knife to a ball bat), murder, kidnapping in this great "civilized" world we live in? If so, I will gladly give mine up. If you can`t though, I would much rather have one around.
More European haughtiness, as if Europe didn`t refine and reinvent the art of killing each other for thousands of years.
Monday, January 24, 2011 10:44:47 AM
I have also never said that there is no cost in having a gun culture. It is more than a cost, is is a responsibility for those who live around guns to teach and practice safe usage. This is a responsibility I feel should be taught from a young age, and if taught widely would decrease accidental gun deaths. (As shown by the numbers of children I have taught to safely shoot for an NRA/Boy Scout youth shoot, none of whom have shot up their schools yet)
Of course this is just a "silly argument", but obviously the benefit of having a "car culture" is one that we pay the price for in auto accidents, DUIS, and vehicular homicide, however we don't advocate getting rid of cars. But we can all agree that if there was better training when people got their driver`s license there would be fewer accidents.
So instead of being irrational and "faith based" I believe that my opinion is pretty consistent.
Monday, January 24, 2011 10:29:59 AM
Angie the point I was illustrating was not a commentary on purely the mechanical aspect of a gun. It is obvious that a gun is a weapon like any other, designed to stop your enemy from using a weapon on you. I have never advocated treating a gun without respect for its destructive capability.
However you cannot equate the design with the intent of the user, which I suppose was the mistake I made, and the distinction I was trying to point out. There is a difference between kill and murder, but many people make the two the same thing. We all know that you find your joy in the minute details and nitpicking, so let me rephrase.
"A gun may be designed to kill, but that does not mean it is designed for murder." There are times when you kill to save. There is a plethora of dual purpose technology out there that is only dependent on the intent of the user as to whether it causes harm or is beneficial.