I'm from the US, and I don't own a gun, but if ou show me some sicko that tortures kids to death or something, I'll be happy to execute them. We don't need to experiment with new stuff to put in them with a needle. Just give me a pistol, and I'll put one in their head. I don't need to line up with some other people, and not know if I'm shooting blanks or not.

(April 15, 2015 at 10:09 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(April 15, 2015 at 8:29 am)Alex K Wrote: In that case I could even kill them with a spoon.

Seems like a bit of a pointless poll to me. Or at the least I'm not seeing the relevance of the question, or even how it pertains to a discussion on gun legislation.

I'd be very surprised if anyone would say no, and surprised further still if those who did would actually sit by and watch their loved ones be harmed in the scenario in the OP.

Most everyone would defend their family/loved ones with whatever they had to hand, would they not? So what does this even remotely suggest about guns? A poll asking the same question for knives would be equally as irrelevant IMHO. 

It's called the duck dynasty scenario...

(April 15, 2015 at 10:09 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(April 15, 2015 at 8:29 am)Alex K Wrote: In that case I could even kill them with a spoon.

Seems like a bit of a pointless poll to me. Or at the least I'm not seeing the relevance of the question, or even how it pertains to a discussion on gun legislation.

I'd be very surprised if anyone would say no, and surprised further still if those who did would actually sit by and watch their loved ones be harmed in the scenario in the OP.

Most everyone would defend their family/loved ones with whatever they had to hand, would they not? So what does this even remotely suggest about guns? A poll asking the same question for knives would be equally as irrelevant IMHO. 

First off, most threads are pointless.  This one is no exception.
Secondly, color yourself surprised.  I've met three people (all women coincidentally?) that said they probably could not kill someone even in defense.  They said at the final moment they don't know that they could pull the trigger.  So the poll is not as stupid as you would like to claim.  Some people just do not have it in them to kill even in defense of themselves or their families.

Someone already answered no to this poll:

(April 15, 2015 at 9:23 am)c172 Wrote: No. I am disabled, and of the opinion that to own a firearm, you should have at least a certain level of physical and mental faculties. Somebody with crutches or in a wheelchair should not qualify. So I would never own a firearm, much less kill someone with it. 

I'm American, in America.

(And by the way c172 I know several disabled people who have guns.  It is their only real means of protection.)

Lastly Napo
As for the poll being irrelevant:  You have made my point for me.  A knife a spoon a gun - it matters not.  Killing is killing but a gun is a major advantage over any other weapon and the thread that I'm referring to was not titled "Knife Control" and there is no 2nd Amendment defending cutlery.  

Could you kill someone with a firearm? No. I don't have an arm made of fire. *rimshot* I'm sorry.

(April 15, 2015 at 10:09 am)Napoléon Wrote: Seems like a bit of a pointless poll to me. Or at the least I'm not seeing the relevance of the question, or even how it pertains to a discussion on gun legislation.

I'd be very surprised if anyone would say no, and surprised further still if those who did would actually sit by and watch their loved ones be harmed in the scenario in the OP.

Most everyone would defend their family/loved ones with whatever they had to hand, would they not? So what does this even remotely suggest about guns? A poll asking the same question for knives would be equally as irrelevant IMHO. 

I think the main point of the question is about the killing, and the gun part is just a curious addition on Cinjin's part. Perhaps he added it because it's one of the more impersonal ways to kill someone and he thought that would affect people's choice?

---

(April 15, 2015 at 10:18 am)Alex K Wrote: It's called the duck dynasty scenario...

I don't follow.

Phil Robertson talking about how atheists have no morals, so if some people tortured and killed your family you'd have to admit there's nothing wrong about it. Because godlessness means no empathy, for some reason. In other news, a lawyer in California is trying to make state mandated gay killing a thing.

(April 15, 2015 at 10:29 am)Cinjin Wrote: First off, most threads are pointless.  This one is no exception.

So in one breath you're saying this thread is irrelevant and "useless" (your own words), but in another it seems like you have some kind of point to make? That this thread isn't as stupid as it seems (even though I didn't say it was necessarily stupid, I just didn't see what the relevancy or point of it was).

And I'm still no nearer to really understanding the point. Is there one? Isn't there one?

Quote:Secondly, color yourself surprised.  I've met three people (all women coincidentally?) that said they probably could not kill someone even in defense.  They said at the final moment they don't know that they could pull the trigger.  So the poll is not as stupid as you would like to claim.  Some people just do not have it in them to kill even in defense of themselves or their families.

So hold up, you say you've met three women who said "that they probably could not", but, "in the final moment don't know". Last I checked "don't know" does not mean "probably could not". Sounds like some weird interpretation there to me. I still remain very sceptical that someone would not at the very least try whatever they thought they could get away with in the scenario you mentioned in the OP. Even killing or shooting if they had a gun to hand. I still think even the most harmless of creatures will do what they have to if backed into a corner and threatened. That's basic survival instinct, no?

Ofcourse there are instances where it's not perhaps the best idea to fight back, and many people wouldn't through fear or other things, sure. But the scenario you described in the OP just sounds to me like it would only have one response from most everyone.

---

(April 15, 2015 at 10:32 am)Faith No More Wrote: I think the main point of the question is about the killing, and the gun part is just a curious addition on Cinjin's part. Perhaps he added it because it's one of the more impersonal ways to kill someone and he thought that would affect people's choice?

Right, so what difference does it make if it's a gun? Cinjin hasn't talked about that. That's all I'm really asking.

The point is that Cinjin wanted to know something.

(April 15, 2015 at 10:29 am)Cinjin Wrote: Someone already answered no to this poll:

(April 15, 2015 at 9:23 am)c172 Wrote: No. I am disabled, and of the opinion that to own a firearm, you should have at least a certain level of physical and mental faculties. Somebody with crutches or in a wheelchair should not qualify. So I would never own a firearm, much less kill someone with it. 

I'm American, in America.

And they only answered no due to their disability, in their own words.

Quote:Lastly Napo
As for the poll being irrelevant:  You have made my point for me.  A knife a spoon a gun - it matters not.  Killing is killing but a gun is a major advantage over any other weapon and the thread that I'm referring to was not titled "Knife Control" and there is no 2nd Amendment defending cutlery.  

Okay, so this is the point I have a contention with then (even though you said there wasn't a point to the thread, funny that).

(April 15, 2015 at 10:48 am)Napoléon Wrote: Right, so what difference does it make if it's a gun? Cinjin hasn't talked about that. That's all I'm really asking.

I hear you.  I'm curious, too, but I think it's just a relic from the fact that the idea came to him from the discussion in the gun thread.