• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Three Dumbest Publications in the World…

Thorgasm said:
It was never a great magazine.

I remember when they trashed Appetite for Destruction. :lol:
Click to expand...
Touche. And that was by FAR GnR's best album, it wasn't as polished as UYI I and II but man that raw sound was KILLER!
 
Thorgasm said:
So what exactly is the problem with the article?

Is it a problem to acknowledge that guns are in fact, dangerous?

What is wrong with people that they are more scared of two men holding hands and maybe even kissing each other in public than they are of guns?
Click to expand...
Guns "can be" dangerous. Thing is there is no way around saying that, as guns can be dangerous so can hammers, chain saws(at any time), cars, etc.

Danger doesn't come from the object itself, it comes from one of many possible factors such as unsafe handling, unattended children gaining access, or criminal misuse. The factors are not especially true for any object or tool.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Guns "can be" dangerous. Thing is there is no way around saying that, as guns can be dangerous so can hammers, chain saws(at any time), cars, etc.

Danger doesn't come from the object itself, it comes from one of many possible factors such as unsafe handling, unattended children gaining access, or criminal misuse. The factors are not especially true for any object or tool.
Click to expand...

Guns are dangerous. Any other attitude about them increases the chances for something bad to happen. They should always be treated as loaded and at risk of misfire. Never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. It only takes a couple seconds of not treating a gun as dangerous to have something bad happen. Whether it's the police officer killed by his toddler when he sat his gun on the table for a second or the hunter who laid his gun down and his dog shot him in the ass. I even remember someone posting a story about a guy had stolen a couple guns from a home and the guy had them in the front seat and the trigger guard from one pulled the trigger on the other and it shot him in the head and killed him.

I'm not demonizing guns when I say they are dangerous. Comparing them to other things like hammers and cars hurts your argument. Lets not pretend that they are equal. You don't even believe that yourself. If you did, you would support giving our law enforcement officers hammers instead of firearms.
 
Thorgasm said:
Guns are dangerous. Any other attitude about them increases the chances for something bad to happen. They should always be treated as loaded and at risk of misfire. Never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. It only takes a couple seconds of not treating a gun as dangerous to have something bad happen. Whether it's the police officer killed by his toddler when he sat his gun on the table for a second or the hunter who laid his gun down and his dog shot him in the ass. I even remember someone posting a story about a guy had stolen a couple guns from a home and the guy had them in the front seat and the trigger guard from one pulled the trigger on the other and it shot him in the head and killed him.

I'm not demonizing guns when I say they are dangerous. Comparing them to other things like hammers and cars hurts your argument. Lets not pretend that they are equal. You don't even believe that yourself. If you did, you would support giving our law enforcement officers hammers instead of firearms.
Click to expand...
Guns "can be" dangerous. Thing is, you can be injured by misusing or disrespecting any object, problem is(not you saying this) is that many people say "guns are dangerous, so let's restrict and/or ban them". Problem is a gun by itself is not dangerous, it is always some form of misuse or faulty maintenance that creates a danger, same with any other tool. If you don't inspect a carpenter's hammer and have a fracture, you can end up with the claw end through an eyeball, if you fail to maintain your vehicle it can fail. Same with ignoring safety protocol of anything.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Guns "can be" dangerous. Thing is, you can be injured by misusing or disrespecting any object, problem is(not you saying this) is that many people say "guns are dangerous, so let's restrict and/or ban them". Problem is a gun by itself is not dangerous, it is always some form of misuse or faulty maintenance that creates a danger, same with any other tool. If you don't inspect a carpenter's hammer and have a fracture, you can end up with the claw end through an eyeball, if you fail to maintain your vehicle it can fail. Same with ignoring safety protocol of anything.
Click to expand...

Even when maintained properly, they are dangerous. I get that you are also saying that human error is what makes them dangerous. Even if there isn't a human error they are dangerous. If they weren't dangerous, people wouldn't need them for protection.
 
Thorgasm said:
Even when maintained properly, they are dangerous. I get that you are also saying that human error is what makes them dangerous. Even if there isn't a human error they are dangerous. If they weren't dangerous, people wouldn't need them for protection.
Click to expand...

I think we might disagree as to how you define dangerous
 
Thorgasm said:
Even when maintained properly, they are dangerous. I get that you are also saying that human error is what makes them dangerous. Even if there isn't a human error they are dangerous. If they weren't dangerous, people wouldn't need them for protection.
Click to expand...
Actually, without human error a firearm is harmless. The only way I've ever heard of a bullet fired without any type of interaction was either improper storage or folks who forgot one in a pocket or box and threw them into a fire, still human error. Take the chainsaw example, every time you run a chainsaw you have a risk of injury, all it takes is just the right knot in a tree or a loose link to send a broken blade flying and at that torque/speed they can do a lot of damage, this is without human error.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think we might disagree as to how you define dangerous
Click to expand...

"He was in danger."
"Was he in grave danger?"
"Is there any other kind?"
 
Thorgasm said:
"He was in danger."
"Was he in grave danger?"
"Is there any other kind?"
Click to expand...

dangerous to the user?
dangerous to an intended target?
dangerous to bystanders?
 
Thorgasm said:
Guns are dangerous. Any other attitude about them increases the chances for something bad to happen. They should always be treated as loaded and at risk of misfire. Never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. It only takes a couple seconds of not treating a gun as dangerous to have something bad happen. Whether it's the police officer killed by his toddler when he sat his gun on the table for a second or the hunter who laid his gun down and his dog shot him in the ass. I even remember someone posting a story about a guy had stolen a couple guns from a home and the guy had them in the front seat and the trigger guard from one pulled the trigger on the other and it shot him in the head and killed him.

I'm not demonizing guns when I say they are dangerous. Comparing them to other things like hammers and cars hurts your argument. Lets not pretend that they are equal. You don't even believe that yourself. If you did, you would support giving our law enforcement officers hammers instead of firearms.
Click to expand...

In general I agreed with your post up till the cars comment, which then made me think it was less realistic, honest, practical common sense and more just a means to a political end.

Cars are dangerous in a very similar sense and should be treated as such. People not treating cars like the multi-ton, high powered, high speed, battering ram that they are is what leads to people thinking its fine to put on makeup, shave, text whole conversations, etc in their vehicles. It's a faux sense of safety because your enclosed that lulls people over time into forgetting how dangerous it is to be flung through space at 50 miles per hour.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, without human error a firearm is harmless. The only way I've ever heard of a bullet fired without any type of interaction was either improper storage or folks who forgot one in a pocket or box and threw them into a fire, still human error. Take the chainsaw example, every time you run a chainsaw you have a risk of injury, all it takes is just the right knot in a tree or a loose link to send a broken blade flying and at that torque/speed they can do a lot of damage, this is without human error.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot that guy, the gun was dangerous for him. If you shoot him with a large caliber round it may go through his neck and hit your neighbor walking by his window in the head. When a gun is used properly, it is still dangerous.

I already told you, I'm not demonizing guns. Guns are supposed to be dangerous. If they weren't we'd have to slap intruders with big dildos or something. :lol:
 
Thorgasm said:
Yes...
Click to expand...

guns

1) not dangerous to the user in 99.99% of the time

2) dangerous to intended targets-absolutely

3) to bystanders-again, not in most cases
 
Thorgasm said:
That's simply not true. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot that guy, the gun was dangerous for him. If you shoot him with a large caliber round it may go through his neck and hit your neighbor walking by his window in the head. When a gun is used properly, it is still dangerous.

I already told you, I'm not demonizing guns. Guns are supposed to be dangerous. If they weren't we'd have to slap intruders with big dildos or something. :lol:
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call that dangerous in the traditional sense. If you are speaking to intended use, sure, and the point of a guy breaking into my house isn't that the gun is dangerous...........I am, whatever I have to use to stop his aggression will be utilized, if it's not a gun, it could be a dagger, other type of knife, baseball bat, or even a handy USB cable but he will not succeed if I can help it.
 
Zyphlin said:
In general I agreed with your post up till the cars comment, which then made me think it was less realistic, honest, practical common sense and more just a means to a political end.
Click to expand...

What political end is that?

Zyphlin said:
Cars are dangerous in a very similar sense and should be treated as such. People not treating cars like the multi-ton, high powered, high speed, battering ram that they are is what leads to people thinking its fine to put on makeup, shave, text whole conversations, etc in their vehicles. It's a faux sense of safety because your enclosed that lulls people over time into forgetting how dangerous it is to be flung through space at 50 miles per hour.
Click to expand...

Cars are dangerous too. I think everyone should have to take a physics class in order to get a license.

It's not a political agenda that makes me say cars is a poor analogy. There is a paper trail on every car in the country. I suppose you could build a car from scratch and only drive it in your yard and never get a title for it, but I think it's safe to say that that isn't what he was referencing. Cars are not designed with the purpose of being able to destroy something. Cops don't say, "I have a squad car but I hope I never have to use it."

You don't land at the airport and see a line of gun rental businesses. (I'm surprised Texas hasn't thought of it yet though. :lol:) Guns are not harmless. Even the most well trained people make mistakes. Would you like me to post the video of the FBI guns talking about gun safety and shooting himself in the foot? I read a story about an officer shooting himself in the leg trying to shoot a pitbull. Guns are dangerous. Pretending they are harmless is dangerous too. Guns are to be respected because they are dangerous. I just want people to keep that in mind because no matter how well you are trained, you can make a mistake.
 
TurtleDude said:
guns

1) not dangerous to the user in 99.99% of the time

2) dangerous to intended targets-absolutely

3) to bystanders-again, not in most cases
Click to expand...

You are making up that statistic. :lol:

Danger is the possibility of harm. That's the whole point of having a gun for self defense.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I wouldn't call that dangerous in the traditional sense. If you are speaking to intended use, sure, and the point of a guy breaking into my house isn't that the gun is dangerous...........I am, whatever I have to use to stop his aggression will be utilized, if it's not a gun, it could be a dagger, other type of knife, baseball bat, or even a handy USB cable but he will not succeed if I can help it.
Click to expand...

What do you think the traditional sense of danger is?
 
Thorgasm said:
You are making up that statistic. :lol:

Danger is the possibility of harm. That's the whole point of having a gun for self defense.
Click to expand...

again, guns aren't dangerous to people who use them properly
 
Thorgasm said:
It's not a political agenda that makes me say cars is a poor analogy. .
Click to expand...

I question that, and continue to based on your counter of it which is a bunch of goal posti moving nonsense that had nothing tondo with your original post about danger. You suggested cars are a poor analogy in regards to guns as it related to the context of your post, which had nothing to do with registration or anything of the sort but simply had to do with the basic danger a gun present...relating to that, case absolutely are a good analogy as something else whose very use is in and of itself dangerous.
 
Thorgasm said:
What do you think the traditional sense of danger is?
Click to expand...
Pretty much anything that can cause harm, which is pretty much anything. It's pretty simple, if I wanted to kill someone(I don't, I hate violence) would it really matter if I shot them versus taking my belt off and strangling them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom