AZ FTW

Ceesman762 wrote: In NY state, without a CCW permit, I can not carry my pistol outside my house in my yard unless I was going to a range or gunshop. And a criminal can sue me if he hurts himself on my poperty during a break in of my home, unless of course I have a "no trespassing" sign displayed on my property.

This thread is full of fail.

ParielIsBack wrote: Hysteria wrote: Also, how is a gun not dangerous in and of itself?  The application of a few pounds of pressure on this object can cause massive amounts of destruction and/or fatal injuries.  If you are able to apply that statement to any object, that object is dangerous.  That is like saying that a set bear trap is not dangerous. A gun isn't dangerous in and of itself. Bullets sir, bullets. Again, statistics: guns are less dangerous than cars, cancer, cigarettes. Guns don't deserve some sort of pedestal simply because they're particularly effective at homicide (while none of the other things I mentioned are).

I guess what bothers me most about  your arguments is that they are based on interpretation and semantics. Hardly defensible...

ParielIsBack wrote: Guns don't deserve some sort of pedestal simply because they're particularly effective at homicide (while none of the other things I mentioned are).

They do not.  They are on the pedestal because they have but a single use and they are amazingly efficient at fulfilling that use.  As I have stated previously, that use is violently putting a ~ 5.7mm -11.7mm (based on common calibers) hole through something with the application of as little as 2lbs of pressure - something that, without fail, will always cause destruction (be it a target, tree or human head), injury or death (animal or human).

Once again, any object whose sole purpose is to destroy, injure or kill something is dangerous, not just a firearm.  To state otherwise simply based on a minute semantics issue is foolish.

Nambu pistols are inherently dangerous. Just throwing that out there....

StormyKnight wrote: Hysteria wrote: Also, how is a gun not dangerous in and of itself? Ok, place a loaded gun on a table.  Swear at it.  Threaten it.  What does the gun do?  Nothing.   Hysteria wrote: The application of a few pounds of pressure on this object can cause massive amounts of destruction and/or fatal injuries. See, now you're adding variables to the mix.  You have to have somebody apply pressure to the trigger.  That somebody is a person.  As I said earlier - People are dangerous, not guns.   Hysteria wrote: If you are able to apply that statement to any object, that object is dangerous. Not necessarily true.   Hysteria wrote: That is like saying that a set bear trap is not dangerous. That depends on where the trap is, now doesn't it?  What if it was locked in a bank vault?  What if it was buried under tons of cement?

So your criteria for an object to be dangerous is that it has to react in an unsafe manner after you swear at it?  Outstanding.

In your world of fluffy bunnies and nerf guns, what exactly is dangerous then, pray tell.

Wow...somehow I get the feeling that at least a couple of you are having way too much fun in this thread...

If you're going to argue that people don't kill people, but guns kill people, I'm still going to assert that you're wrong:

Bullets kill people.



An unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a book sitting on a table.

Edited by Linus - 23 April 2010 at 8:59pm

I disagree

Ben Grimm wrote: StormyKnight wrote: Ok, place a loaded gun on a table.  Swear at it.  Threaten it.  What does the gun do?  Nothing.     So the firearm on the table is not dangerous?    I presume then, that you leave your loaded guns on the kitchen table within reach of children.  Seeing as how guns aren't dangerous and all...

He probably doesn't let the kids drive the car either.  Or for that matter, use the lawnmower, weed wacker, or large knives.