Americans right to protect themselves

[Faye]

I'm sorry but it's not an argument it's a statement. Guns DO NOT kill people. People kill people.
As for guns making us safer, here s just one source for you to research.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.lifezette.com/polizette/report-guns-make-you-safer/amp/

Setting aside the fact that the Crime Prevention Research Center appears to work on behalf on the gun lobby, the source you linked is not a source at all. It is an article reporting on a survey, not a study. And the conclusions drawn in the article do not even follow from what they found in the survey, which is that guns are more often used for self-defense than not. Even if it is true that guns are used more often used in self-defense, that does not change the fact that they are also used by mass murderers or mean that they actually make us safer on the whole.

And even if guns do not kill people and people kill people, it would be far more difficult for people to kill people if they did not have access to guns like what the Las Vegas shooter had. Or if there were limits to ammo clips at the very least.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Your comment might make some sense if guns really were animate objects that could walk around and had a mind or their own....but of course there not, so it makes no sense to say that 'it's not guns that kill people, it's people'.

Of course guns kill. No one is going to be able to kill you with their ugly face alone are they, unless they happen to throw you out of a high rise..of course knives also kill but not with the speed and precision that guns do it in.

@Eventhorizon you might want to come back and 'unlike' this post, I didn't understand why you 'liked' it in the first place but now it's been edited it should be a bit easier for you to get my drift.

Oh. Well Roobard&Custard of whom has 11,000 like and yet I do not know because you have undoubtedly changed your name at some point...i thought you were agreeing with me. However you clearly are not which in this instance simply makes you wrong which is fine. People are wrong all the time. However it's difficult to be wrong on this particular subject which leaves me to worry for you. Are you Ok?

 

[Littlelissa]

Oh. Well Roobard&Custard of whom has 11,000 like and yet I do not know because you have undoubtedly changed your name at some point...i thought you were agreeing with me. However you clearly are not which in this instance simply makes you wrong which is fine. People are wrong all the time. However it's difficult to be wrong on this particular subject which leaves me to worry for you. Are you Ok?

lol.
So you don't agree that guns are inanimate, so it was always going to be the man behind them that did the killing...which doesn't mean to say it's correct to say that guns don't kill, because very obviously they do.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Setting aside the fact that the Crime Prevention Research Center appears to work on behalf on the gun lobby, the source you linked is not a source at all. It is an article reporting on a survey, not a study. And the conclusions drawn in the article do not even follow from what they found in the survey, which is that guns are more often used for self-defense than not. Even if it is true that guns are used more often used in self-defense, that does not change the fact that they are also used by mass murderers or mean that they actually make us safer on the whole.

And even if guns do not kill people and people kill people, it would be far more difficult for people to kill people if they did not have access to guns like what the Las Vegas shooter had. Or if there were limits to ammo clips at the very least.

I'll agree so long as people do not have access to guns like Las Vegas it would be more difficult to kill people. But of course people with intent will always have access to what they want especially when it's something as simple as a gun. If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns such and so forth. And yeah what I provided is only the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure many articles can be found to show guns don't help with security funded by those who fear them.
In the end you'll continue to chose to believe what you like absent anything that supports a view different than your own.
So it's left to a majority to rule and guide the minority. Right now gun owners along with the second amendment rule the minority and it will be that way for the foreseeable future.

 

[Eventhorizon]

lol.
So you don't agree that guns are inanimate, so it was always going to be the man behind them that did the killing...which also doesn't mean to say that it's right to say that guns don't kill, because very obviously they do.

Eh?
Are you being facetious or serious?

 

[Eventhorizon]

Says the INTJ on the INFJ forum.

Hey!..... didn't you say once you'd eat your shoe if I was an intj?

 

[Skarekrow]

Says the INTJ on the INFJ forum.

What’s up with that anyhow?
“All you stupid feelers wearing your hearts' on your sleeve, let me tell you again how you are wrong.”

 

[ImaginaryBloke]

Hey!..... didn't you say once you'd eat your shoe if I was an intj?

 

[sprinkles]

Guns kill, but humans murder.

 

[the]

Hey!..... didn't you say once you'd eat your shoe if I was an intj?

Find it and take him to task!

 

[Littlelissa]

Americans right to protect themselves;
Americans carry guns to protect themselves from other Americans who carry guns, can you see how this doesn't work...

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Americans right to protect themselves;
Americans carry guns to protect themselves from other Americans who carry guns, can you see how this doesn't work...

In Guns we trust...

 

[Eventhorizon]

Guns kill, but humans murder.

Humans murder.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Americans right to protect themselves;
Americans carry guns to protect themselves from other Americans who carry guns, can you see how this doesn't work...

People need to protect themselves and the fact is some people couldn't protect themselves on their own...with their bare hands and it has nothing to do with guns. Men can easily overpower women with brute strength as an example. Most anyway.

 

[the]

Americans right to protect themselves;
Americans carry guns to protect themselves from other Americans who carry guns, can you see how this doesn't work...

I don't see how it doesn't work, but i easily see how it does work.

 

[JCPA]

@Eventhorizonguns are tools.

Do you really believe that? Tools usually multiply an input force for some specific function. On the other hand, weapons kill, maim or harm.

Name another tool that you would use from a distance of 200 yards. Or for that matter, when would you ever use a gun as a tool, to blow off the top of a 2-liter bottle? The fact is guns are weapons. Knives are also weapons, but they can be used as tools (feeding, whittle wood, scale a fish). A pencil is a writing tool that can be used as a weapon. There is a difference.

Even if you think guns don't kill people, surely you would agree that they make mass murder conveniently accessible.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Do you really believe that? Tools usually multiply an input force for some specific function. On the other hand, weapons kill, maim or harm.

Name another tool that you would use from a distance of 200 yards. Or for that matter, when would you ever use a gun as a tool, to blow off the top of a 2-liter bottle? The fact is guns are weapons. Knives are also weapons, but they can be used as tools (feeding, whittle wood, scale a fish). A pencil is a writing tool that can be used as a weapon. There is a difference.

Even if you think guns don't kill people, surely you would agree that they make mass murder conveniently accessible.

Yes I absolutely know them to be tools. Before Guns, people hunted to put food on the table.with bows and spears. People use traps to gain food. All are tools that perform a function. The question of whether or not we should be killing anything at all is another argument.

Mass murder is performed with intent. In this most recent incident though it was a combination of things that allowed this thing to kill and hurt as many as it did. One was the venue, one the location and then the tools it used. We have seen attacks where people drive cars into crowds, fertilizer to create bombs...all are nothing but a choice of tools. It is the intent though that needs to be looked at. That is the rational conclusion.

 

[JCPA]

Yes I absolutely know them to be tools. Before Guns, people hunted to put food on the table.with bows and spears. People use traps to gain food. All are tools that perform a function. The question of whether or not we should be killing anything at all is another argument.

Mass murder is performed with intent. In this most recent incident though it was a combination of things that allowed this thing to kill and hurt as many as it did. One was the venue, one the location and then the tools it used. We have seen attacks where people drive cars into crowds, fertilizer to create bombs...all are nothing but a choice of tools. It is the intent though that needs to be looked at. That is the rational conclusion.

So you can't name another tool that can be used from 200 yards or whether a gun can actually be used as a tool, instead of a weapon? Bows and spears are also weapons, my friend.

Intent is surely important, but the singular flaw in your conclusion is intent is not always relevant when it comes to murder; whereas, access is always relevant. Someone who has access to a gun that is psychotic or child-like cannot demonstrate intent. How is the public supposed to know the difference between the responsible ones and those that are aren't--we should just trust you on this and wait until the next disaster? The tragedy is those without empathy on such matters don't change their view until their own lives are personally affected. It's a very reactive and backward way to think about important things that affect us all. Bottom line is: the United States has been unable to demonstrate that it can responsibly handle the right to own guns, regardless of intent, so access to guns should be denied.

 

[Asa]

@JCPA – Don't put words in my mouth. I would never say something like "guns don't kill people".
Please try to understand what I was saying about gray areas and cultural differences and try to see things from other perspectives, as INFJs are supposed to.

First point: While I lived in the city I was against having a gun. I saw fetishization of guns there, irresponsible gun use, and threats and crimes with guns. I've had friends die from guns and violence, and seen people die from violence where everyday objects (like chairs, or cast iron skillets) were used as weapons. (And yes, I stepped in to help save a life in many cases, unarmed except skills I picked up in a dojo.)

Second point: The gun owners I know are currently speaking out for stricter gun laws, longer waiting periods, background checks and mental health checks, compromise with gun laws, and for semi-automatic and automatic weapons to be outlawed. However, they want the right to own a gun if one is qualified and passes the checks, to remain legal. This won't work unless our country gets serious about providing health care, including mental healthcare, because mentally ill people can still access illegal guns, and that wouldn't change if gun ownership became completely illegal. Reasonable and responsible people who want to own guns are not against these measures.

Third point: "A tool is a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function." – The function of a gun is for protection. In rural areas, one takes a gun when going into the wilderness. Most of the time, wild animals are not a threat, but sometimes they are. My last choice would be to shoot anything, but I want the option, and everyone I know in my area feels the same way. Nobody I know who has a gun even hunts, btw, which is a legal function of gun. I'm vegan, and some of my gun-owning neighbors are vegetarian, so unless you're vegan/veg, too, you probably end more lives than we do on a daily basis.

Fourth point: Domestic terrorism must be addressed. While I am for compromising on gun laws, I admit people who want to commit these atrocities will find a different way. Pressure cookers have been used as weapons. (Can the news also please stop teaching people how to make bombs?) Mental health care is needed in this country. People with criminal backgrounds and metal health issues slip through the cracks too easily, and this needs to change. That said, our prison system is a disaster, too. We also need to stop glorifying the killers. Their names should not be in the news, or made public. I don't know what else to do, but if we all put our heads together, we can come up with more options to minimize the tragedies that are now part of American culture.

 

[Eventhorizon]

So you can't name another tool that can be used from 200 yards or whether a gun can actually be used as a tool, instead of a weapon? Bows and spears are also weapons, my friend.

Intent is surely important, but the singular flaw in your conclusion is intent is not always relevant when it comes to murder; whereas, access is always relevant. Someone who has access to a gun that is psychotic or child-like cannot demonstrate intent. How is the public supposed to know the difference between the responsible ones and those that are aren't--we should just trust you on this and wait until the next disaster? The tragedy is those without empathy on such matters don't change their view until their own lives are personally affected. It's a very reactive and backward way to think about important things that affect us all. Bottom line is: the United States has been unable to demonstrate that it can responsibly handle the right to own guns, regardless of intent, so access to guns should be denied.

Can you name a blender that can also cut down a tree? For something to be a tool it doesn't have to do the job of all other tools. For the rest of your argument input another item in place of gun and it's as relevant. Hammer, knife, sword, car...