The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..12..21..30..39..44~45~46
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20877 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.


I don't think many people are in favor of anyone owning a gun.


The only way the position makes sense is to misrepresent the other side so he seems reasonable.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, acesover wrote:
Rhodes said:

I don't see why you're having a problem with my question.

100 + X shooting incidents involving people who legally own handguns or rifles. 100 of those shootings are clearly good shoots, the person doing the shooting was in fact in danger of his or his family's life. X number of shootings are NOT "good" shoots, the shooter was not protecting his life or property (even if he THOUGHT he was) and someone died who shouldn't have.

My question is, how large does "X" have to be before you consider that not everybody is qualified to own a gun and use it responsibly?

-------------------------------------------------

The fly in the ointment here is in your statement that reads "(even if he THOUGHT he was)". If in truth that is the case it is a good shooting. Thought in this case is used as a synonym for believe.

Secondly I never said EVERYBODY is qualified to own a handgun. Qualified and "has a right to" are two completely different issues. Also not everyone has a right to won a handgun such as convicted felons etc. The issue here is here who decided who is qualified and what are the qualifications? Also we have to define the words everybody and anybody. You use the term "everybody is qualified" and as I said before I never said that. Also as far as I know there are no qualifications in order to own a hand gun but there are regulations.


No. I don't agree. If you were wrong in your reasoning as to the need to use a gun, then the shoot is bad.

If you THOUGHT the suspect had a gun, but it turned out to be a wallet or a camera, you still shot an unarmed person.

(And before anyone brings this up, NO I don't think you have to be shot at first in order to shoot someone. But if you're going to take someone's life in your hands, you'd better be pretty d@mn certain of your case!)

In my opinion, someone who isn't qualified to use a gun doesn't have a right to one.


While you may not agree that is your right, I disagree with you. What made the person believe the person had a gun or weapon in the first place? Did he threaten you or your daughter in a semi dark room and say he said he was going to cut her throat and had a butter knife, or even a plastic toy knife in his hand? Did he have a plastic gun that looked real and say he would shoot her? Well let me tell you. You would have shot him because you THOUGHT he had a weapon that would kill your daughter. Good or bad shooting? You tell me. Thought, really believed...you or your daughter are going to lose their life if you don't prevent it RIGHT NOW. Think about it.

Tell me how you decide whether someone is "qualified" to own a gun. Just curious as you feel that way which I do not disagree. I think we have common ground but the word qualify is not on that ground. Are you in a position to say who is qualified and who isn't? What criteria would you use knowing what you know about firearms? Do they have to be a good shot, do they have to know how to take the weapon apart and clean and maintain it? Just what qualifies a person? I will tell you none of those things matter. It is the person and their character that matters along with their mind set. Qualify and regulate are two different terms completely in my mind. Ninety nine percent of the population does not have a firearm with the intent to kill or rob or harm someone. That in of it self helps to qualify them to own a fire arm. However there is more. They must be of a certain age, they must be mentally competent, they cannot be a convicted felon or a convicted drug user there are more reasons but I am not going to try and make a complete list of reasons. They are regulations not being qualified. Qualified is to abstract as it refers to ones ability and some have better ability and hand eye coordination than others which is why pro athletes make so much money. Smile But to deny anyone from owning a firearm that is a mentally sound law abiding citizen is not right just because you say so, because of the miniscule amount of people who use them in a harmful way. Why take away protection from the ninety percent? Is it because of the criminal one percent? Would you rather only criminals have firearms?

I know I am leaving myself wide open here. I can feel incoming. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Your question was in two parts; "You don't have a problem with the innocent being incarcerated" and "How many innocent being incarcerated with 100 guilty is OK?"

Since I DO have a problem with innocent being incarcerated, 0/100 would be OK with me.

I am aware however that we are fallible and there will be people in prison who shouldn't be.

Hopefully, there will be others who are willing to fight to get those people out.

And hopefully those people will get out. They do have that option. Those people who were executed don't.


Well, if that's how you want to parse it, then the answers to your questions are easy!

1. If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK?

No, we all have a problem with innocent people being killed by guns, so 0/100 would be OK with us. We are however aware that we are fallible and that some people will die who shouldn't.

2. Same formula... 100 guilty people executed/x people exonerated after the execution... solve for x

No, we all have a problem with innocent people being executed, so 0/100 would be OK with us. We are however aware that we are fallible and that some people will be executed who shouldn't.

There, satisfied?
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20877 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Nobody should have a problem with lawful gun ownership. People who own guns lawfully are so rarely the problem.

The idea of zero as the number leaves us with nothing short of total gun bans on every type of firearm. Then we move to bow and arrows, knives, pointy sticks and so forth.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Kabbalah
View Profile
Inner circle
1621 Posts

Profile of Kabbalah
I own many firearms and all of them are very well behaved.
"Long may magicians fascinate and continue to be fascinated by the mystery potential in a pack of cards."
~Cliff Green

"The greatest tricks ever performed are not done at all. The audience simply think they see them."
~ John Northern Hilliard
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:

In my opinion, someone who isn't qualified to use a gun doesn't have a right to one.


While you may not agree that is your right, I disagree with you. What made the person believe the person had a gun or weapon in the first place? Did he threaten you or your daughter in a semi dark room and say he said he was going to cut her throat and had a butter knife, or even a plastic toy knife in his hand? Did he have a plastic gun that looked real and say he would shoot her? Well let me tell you. You would have shot him because you THOUGHT he had a weapon that would kill your daughter. Good or bad shooting? You tell me. Thought, really believed...you or your daughter are going to lose their life if you don't prevent it RIGHT NOW. Think about it.

Tell me how you decide whether someone is "qualified" to own a gun. Just curious as you feel that way which I do not disagree. I think we have common ground but the word qualify is not on that ground. Are you in a position to say who is qualified and who isn't? What criteria would you use knowing what you know about firearms? Do they have to be a good shot, do they have to know how to take the weapon apart and clean and maintain it? Just what qualifies a person? I will tell you none of those things matter. It is the person and their character that matters along with their mind set. Qualify and regulate are two different terms completely in my mind. Ninety nine percent of the population does not have a firearm with the intent to kill or rob or harm someone. That in of it self helps to qualify them to own a fire arm. However there is more. They must be of a certain age, they must be mentally competent, they cannot be a convicted felon or a convicted drug user there are more reasons but I am not going to try and make a complete list of reasons. They are regulations not being qualified. Qualified is to abstract as it refers to ones ability and some have better ability and hand eye coordination than others which is why pro athletes make so much money. Smile But to deny anyone from owning a firearm that is a mentally sound law abiding citizen is not right just because you say so, because of the miniscule amount of people who use them in a harmful way. Why take away protection from the ninety percent? Is it because of the criminal one percent? Would you rather only criminals have firearms?

I know I am leaving myself wide open here. I can feel incoming. Smile


Sigh, the drunken lady didn't threaten anyone, she just pounded on the wrong door.

There was another case where a man knocked on a door to ask for help and the owner shot THROUGH the door!

The Japanese kid scared people. Jumping out and screaming so he could take a picture of the terrified faces, he just picked the wrong country to do it in.

If you verified a weapon and it turned out to be fake, you're still good. If you shot someone who didn't say or do anything threatening, just pulled out his wallet. Or even worse, did nothing at all but one of the arresting officers "tripped and fell" and the others all jumped to a conclusion that they had to fire.

Granted you have to make a split second decision... and you'd better be right or you killed an unarmed person.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to own a gun has to show that they can handle the responsibility of it. A lot of people do, a lot of people don't seem to, and some never get tested.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:

In my opinion, someone who isn't qualified to use a gun doesn't have a right to one.


While you may not agree that is your right, I disagree with you. What made the person believe the person had a gun or weapon in the first place? Did he threaten you or your daughter in a semi dark room and say he said he was going to cut her throat and had a butter knife, or even a plastic toy knife in his hand? Did he have a plastic gun that looked real and say he would shoot her? Well let me tell you. You would have shot him because you THOUGHT he had a weapon that would kill your daughter. Good or bad shooting? You tell me. Thought, really believed...you or your daughter are going to lose their life if you don't prevent it RIGHT NOW. Think about it.

Tell me how you decide whether someone is "qualified" to own a gun. Just curious as you feel that way which I do not disagree. I think we have common ground but the word qualify is not on that ground. Are you in a position to say who is qualified and who isn't? What criteria would you use knowing what you know about firearms? Do they have to be a good shot, do they have to know how to take the weapon apart and clean and maintain it? Just what qualifies a person? I will tell you none of those things matter. It is the person and their character that matters along with their mind set. Qualify and regulate are two different terms completely in my mind. Ninety nine percent of the population does not have a firearm with the intent to kill or rob or harm someone. That in of it self helps to qualify them to own a fire arm. However there is more. They must be of a certain age, they must be mentally competent, they cannot be a convicted felon or a convicted drug user there are more reasons but I am not going to try and make a complete list of reasons. They are regulations not being qualified. Qualified is to abstract as it refers to ones ability and some have better ability and hand eye coordination than others which is why pro athletes make so much money. Smile But to deny anyone from owning a firearm that is a mentally sound law abiding citizen is not right just because you say so, because of the miniscule amount of people who use them in a harmful way. Why take away protection from the ninety percent? Is it because of the criminal one percent? Would you rather only criminals have firearms?

I know I am leaving myself wide open here. I can feel incoming. Smile


Sigh, the drunken lady didn't threaten anyone, she just pounded on the wrong door.

There was another case where a man knocked on a door to ask for help and the owner shot THROUGH the door!

The Japanese kid scared people. Jumping out and screaming so he could take a picture of the terrified faces, he just picked the wrong country to do it in.

If you verified a weapon and it turned out to be fake, you're still good. If you shot someone who didn't say or do anything threatening, just pulled out his wallet. Or even worse, did nothing at all but one of the arresting officers "tripped and fell" and the others all jumped to a conclusion that they had to fire.

Granted you have to make a split second decision... and you'd better be right or you killed an unarmed person.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to own a gun has to show that they can handle the responsibility of it. A lot of people do, a lot of people don't seem to, and some never get tested.



Ed,

How would you test them?

Do you really feel that jumping out of the bushes at night and scaring people to take a picture is responsible? No matter what country you live in it is insane. You are asking to get hurt. Did this guy take a test before he could use his camera? Did he have the IQ of a rock? The answer to both questions is, NO. Did he deserve to get shot? Probably not but he sure did put himself in a dangerous position. Carry it one step further. Suppose the person whom he scared had a heart attack and died. What then? Oh wait it was an accident. Yeah right.

You pick two or three cases to make your point. Kind of sad don't you think? Of course lets add that one was a drunken lady. Enough said there. I do not believe she deserved to be shot just because she was drunk. But come on now, she certainly contributed to her demise. Yes the shooter was irresponsible for sure and should be prosecuted. But no matter what the result of the prosecution is, it is not going to bring her back and she was definitely partly to blame. I wonder how many drunken ladies did the same thing and were never shot. Because the owner of a firearm did not shoot them, does that make them responsible? NO. It just takes common sense. Know your target before you pull the trigger, even in combat more so in your home.

Again I ask you. How would you in your infinite wisdom would you test them?

Cripes if you are walking down a dark street and someone jumps out of the bushes and flashes a bright light in your face what are you going to do? Say cheese.

Lastly. If you verified a weapon and it turned out to be fake, you're still good.

What the heck are you talking about ? Verfied a fake weapon. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
You verified that there was a weapon. Short of letting the guy shoot first (which I've already said I don't believe you need) if you shoot the guy and it turns out it was a fake weapon, it's still good. You may have some very bad moments (a cop from the TV series "Hill Street Blues" comes to mind) but it wasn't irresponsible.

I don't know HOW I'd test them. That's why I'm not in politics or campaining (sp) for gun control.

But I still think there are people out there who aren't qualified to own the guns they do and I hope to God they are never tested.

I notice you never did answer the question;

100 shoots for which there is no question as to validity / "x" shoots that were clearly bad decisions causing the death of an innocent.

Some people on this thread have said guns should be banned for ONE death.

How high would "x" have to be before you re-considered restricting the free ownership of guns?

(Be aware there are people who think ANY regulation of guns... is against the 2nd Amendment)
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20877 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Not quite as many who want to ban all godsend.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
You verified that there was a weapon. Short of letting the guy shoot first (which I've already said I don't believe you need) if you shoot the guy and it turns out it was a fake weapon, it's still good. You may have some very bad moments (a cop from the TV series "Hill Street Blues" comes to mind) but it wasn't irresponsible.

I don't know HOW I'd test them. That's why I'm not in politics or campaining (sp) for gun control.

But I still think there are people out there who aren't qualified to own the guns they do and I hope to God they are never tested.

I notice you never did answer the question;

100 shoots for which there is no question as to validity / "x" shoots that were clearly bad decisions causing the death of an innocent.

Some people on this thread have said guns should be banned for ONE death.

How high would "x" have to be before you re-considered restricting the free ownership of guns?

(Be aware there are people who think ANY regulation of guns... is against the 2nd Amendment)




First off you don't know how to test them because there is no way to test them. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Any bad shooting is a bad decision whether it is a law enforcement officer or a civilian that pulled the trigger. If you really believe by some sort of magical test you are going to prevent accidental shootings you are extremely naive. They give drivers tests before they issue you a license. Here is a surprise. There are still accidents.

Honestly I do not believe there are any people who profess to believe that ANY regulation is against the 2nd (with the exception of criminals). Do you mean that these people feel criminals should have right to arm themselves. Or these people feel the mentally incompetent should have the right to arm themselves. Please find me those people and if anyone should be tested it is them.

You said that: Some people on this thread have said guns should be banned for ONE death.
That is so simplistic I won't even entertain the thought of answering such a statement. And you know it is absurd. An accident is just that, an accident. Look up the meaning of the word accident.

Ed, it is obvious we are going to go round and round on this. I truly feel that taking firearms from law abiding citizens is a travesty of justice and serves no purpose other than to make them more vulnerable to criminals. When you figure out a way to remove the firearms from criminals only, I will listen to you . Until then, sorry your argument is falling on deaf ears here.

We have different opinions and that is fine. I respect you having an opinion. I just don't agree with it.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20877 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Not quite as many who want to ban all godsend.



All guns I should say.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
Kabbalah
View Profile
Inner circle
1621 Posts

Profile of Kabbalah
Quote:


???
"Long may magicians fascinate and continue to be fascinated by the mystery potential in a pack of cards."
~Cliff Green

"The greatest tricks ever performed are not done at all. The audience simply think they see them."
~ John Northern Hilliard
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 1, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:
The USA has problems like nine year olds killing instructors with Uzis, and Sandy Hook massacres every year, because you do not have the interest or the balls to tackle the underlying problem, your gun culture.



Quote:
On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
fear, fear, fear, fear, cower, buy, buy, fear, fear, cower, fear, fear, buy, fear, fear fear.
Thanks, message received.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
lunatik
View Profile
Inner circle
2884 Posts

Profile of lunatik
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 1, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:
The USA has problems like nine year olds killing instructors with Uzis, and Sandy Hook massacres every year, because you do not have the interest or the balls to tackle the underlying problem, your gun culture.



Quote:
On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
fear, fear, fear, fear, cower, buy, buy, fear, fear, cower, fear, fear, buy, fear, fear fear.
Thanks, message received.



bahahahahaha
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5131 Posts

Profile of landmark
Shouldn't I be getting royalties?
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16357 Posts

Profile of tommy
Royalty, they have many guns.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2807 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Sep 19, 2014, Kabbalah wrote:
Quote:


???


No one seems to understand me when I'm serious, so I thought I go out with a joke.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Why is the cop aiming his gun in the direction of the victim, with no bad guy even in the frame? AFAIAC, bizarre.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/25/......-window/

(See last two story photos.)
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..12..21..30..39..44~45~46
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL