(October 3, 2015 at 12:41 pm)c172 Wrote: This is just me, but being stabbed frightens me more than being shot. But yet, I don't think we're doing too much to regulate carrying knives as compare to guns.

That's a pretty fatuous statement to make. Knives are multi-purpose tools. I carry a knife almost everywhere I go, and it has never occurred to me that I might use it to stab someone.

But how many uses does a gun have? You can't slice cheese with a gun, or cut a piece of cord to the proper length, or debone a chicken or shave a bit of wood off that annoyingly squeaky door that's driving you spare, or dig out the cashew you dropped into your printer. Guns have the sole purpose of shooting things, full stop. Whether those things are people, clay pigeons, paper targets, empty bean tins, or animals, you shoot them with guns. Guns also convey a feeling of invincibility. If you piss someone off, they may shoot you form 20 feet away, knowing there's not a lot you can do about it. If this person has a knife instead of a gun, there's at least a chance they're going to hesitate, as there's always a chance for you to take their knife away and feed it to them.

The debate is about guns. Not knives, cricket bats, bricks, rocks, halberds, battle axes of any of the other things people use to damage each other. Guns.

Boru

Not to mention guns make it much easier to kill multiple people at once.

Ugh, why would I get involved in this conversation. Never mind.

Because you have something to say?

I said it before, I carry a spear in my pants. Yet, this one is bound to give life, instead of taking it. A dangerous tool to carry

(October 3, 2015 at 1:20 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I said it before, I carry a spear in my pants. Yet, this one is bound to give life, instead of taking it. A dangerous tool to carry

Here's hoping it doesn't go off prematurely...

Boru

(October 2, 2015 at 11:24 pm)MattB Wrote: Also shooting at a living target makes a difference.

You do realize that often the defensive use of a gun doesn't involve firing it at all, right?

(October 3, 2015 at 7:54 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I'm just gonna put this here.

The FBI reports significantly lower homicide numbers.

(October 3, 2015 at 9:44 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Nice straw man. It apparently escaped your notice that I was trying to explain cultural differences in attitude, not trying to explain current gun usage.

Pearls in front of swine, and all that. Do try to understand what is being said ... and do avoid deliberate misrepresentation, as seems to be the case here.

You did kind of imply what I said though [...]

Nonsense. You may have inferred it base on your own views, but I was not trying to explain why guns are used currently, and asserting that I was is dishonest. Here is what I wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 1:29 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: You also have a different culture and society. Characterizing gun-owners as fearful is not really reflective of our society. Britain is a small country well-tamed long before the age of gunpowder; America is a trans-continental nation that was wilderness where a gun was as much a tool as a plough in its taming, which happened much more recently than the settling of Britain. It's all good and well to look down your nose, but the fact is that the backdrop renders the picture entirely different, and failing to take those differences into account is not very useful.

You will hopefully have noticed the use of the past-tense, and with the use of "backdrop", it is clear that I'm providing context about the relative attitudes towards guns. Asserting that I was trying to explain current use is either a gross misreading on your part, or simple dishonesty.

(October 3, 2015 at 9:44 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: [...] and it stands that it doesn't apply if you live in the middle of a large city, even in the 1700s. Regardless of the fact, culture evolves and has to move on. If it didn't then I'd still be living in a country where people would be burned at the stake for heresy.

Culture also persists, and pretending that it doesn't is not a point you can support.

(October 3, 2015 at 9:44 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: I'm also finding your answer here going down the lines of "well it's our culture" cultural relativism, which I hate. "It's cultural attitude" means nothing if you're the grieving parent of a murdered child within said apparent culture.

Tough shit. We do indeed have cultural differences. This appeal to emotion you're making here is horseshit because I'm not trying to console a grieving parent, but trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. Nor was I excusing my nation's murder rate; there is a difference between excusing and explaining. Confusing the two only makes solutions harder to find.

Seriously, read what is being written, rather that what you wish to see. It's offensive when you stick words in my mouth, and can only make this conversation prickly.

I'm anti-war. I know that it's totally impractical and idealistic, I know that if a country doesn't defend itself it can be invaded. But I just feel that it's the leaders that are in the wrong and the soldiers are often innocent and two wrongs don't make a right but....

...but most of all, if the whole world doesn't become more anti-war than it is then one day some crazy guy is going to hit the big red button and the world is fucked.

I wish weapons didn't exist and women were on average as equally strong as men. That would be pretty cool.