US suicides hit an all-time high last year; a main driver is the growing availability of guns

[Lursa]

Look up the definition of "inherently dangerous" and get back to me.

in·her·ent·ly dangerous. 1. : of, relating to, or being an activity or occupation whose nature presents a risk of grave injury without the use of and sometimes despite the use of special skill and care.​

​

: of, relating to, or being an instrumentality or product that poses a risk of danger stemming from its nature and not from a defect​

link​

Shall we proceed? All my examples fit that definition.

What is the distinction? What is the argument you are using "inherently dangerous" related to regarding firearms?

 

[RF667799]

in·her·ent·ly dangerous. 1. : of, relating to, or being an activity or occupation whose nature presents a risk of grave injury without the use of and sometimes despite the use of special skill and care.​

​

: of, relating to, or being an instrumentality or product that poses a risk of danger stemming from its nature and not from a defect​

link​

Shall we proceed? All my examples fit that definition.

What is the distinction? What is the argument you are using "inherently dangerous" related to regarding firearms?

They like that "stemming from its nature" part. That's why their special pleading so often begins with "designed to kill". Which we've then seen morph into "only purpose is to kill". Then implied "Only purpose is to murder."

 

[Lursa]

They like that "stemming from its nature" part. That's why their special pleading so often begins with "designed to kill". Which we've then seen morph into "only purpose is to kill". Then implied "Only purpose is to murder."

The definitions dont say anything about design or purpose.

 

[Spock]

He had difficulty continuing to run when one guy gained on him in hot pursuit, and lunged in an apparent attempt to take his rifle. And when another guy was trying to bash his brains out. And when another appeared to be trying to shoot him.

This is like trying to get a child to explain why an injury happened. What happened JUST BEFORE all this persecution of Rittenhouse occurred?
Rittenhouse set up the conditions for the confrontation and his actions led directly to the deaths of others.

 

[RF667799]

The definitions dont say anything about design or purpose.

As I keep telling them, the qualities guns are designed with enable them to be used to kill. Virtually every gun that exists. But they don't like that more accurate assessment of "design" as it pertains to the entire category of guns. And that's because it demolishes a special pleading argument.

 

[CLAX1911]

I will try to remind myself not to confuse you with facts or sound reasoning in the future.

You can't when you don't use any. A what if scenario is a hypothetical. Not a fact.

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

hints don't assume people breaking into your house or just there for a hug.

You cannot conceive of ANY circumstance where an intruder might be uninterested in harming any occupant?

it's not relevant. I'm incapable of reading people's minds so therefore I don't know what they're doing. It could be to murder me it could because they want a hug why should I wait around to find out?

Your arguments look silly when they are irrelevant.

opinion noted who cares but my arguments look like to you just counter argument please instead of telling me your opinion about it.

Very confused and inconsistent statement.

maybe that's because you believe a lie and Truth being told to you confuses you.

Rittenhouse posed a THREAT to others.

wow you discovered the purpose of weapons well done next week will work on shapes.

Posing a threat to others specifically writing criminals is precisely the reason he had a gun there in the first place.

But oh no nobody can pose a threat to your precious criminals.

Who did he shoot up a pedophile, a wife beater and that third guy who had an illegal firearm he shot people that posed a threat much greater and much more sinister. Because that's the type of person who engages in rioting.

They merely employed the same reasoning you have employed (ignoring the fact that this did not occur within a dwelling).

being outside of your dwelling doesn't mean criminals have the right to assault or kill you.

Most SYG confrontations favor the person who shoots first and kills their opponent.

right stand your ground is about self-defense favoring the other party is favoring criminal behavior. You don't send your ground against someone who's not engaging in any sort of criminal behavior.

Straight out of the NRA propaganda manual I suspect.

I cherish the NRA for its ability to distract you from the people who are real threat to you.

Have fun beating that horse carts into dust this stay the hell away from the real gun rights organizations.

 

[RF667799]

This is like trying to get a child to explain why an injury happened. What happened JUST BEFORE all this persecution of Rittenhouse occurred?
Rittenhouse set up the conditions for the confrontation and his actions led directly to the deaths of others.

Nobody twisted their arms to confront him. If you wear a Che tee shirt to a VFW hall, is it your fault if someone breaks your nose? You set up the conditions for that confrontation to occur, right?

 

[Spock]

in·her·ent·ly dangerous. 1. : of, relating to, or being an activity or occupation whose nature presents a risk of grave injury without the use of and sometimes despite the use of special skill and care.​

​

: of, relating to, or being an instrumentality or product that poses a risk of danger stemming from its nature and not from a defect​

link​

Shall we proceed? All my examples fit that definition.

What is the distinction? What is the argument you are using "inherently dangerous" related to regarding firearms?

No.
You assume that any activity by which an injury can occur is inherently dangerous. That is not correct. Negligence, inattention, lack of skill etc result in all manner of activity resulting in injury or death. Inherently dangerous refers to forces or conditions beyond the control of the individual that cannot be obviated. Once a projectile leaves a firearm it cannot be controlled even by the most skilled or cautious shooter. The closest comparison is probably a bow and arrow.
All the activities you list typically can have risk substantially ameliorated by skill and caution. No so with a firearm. No one is ever skilled enough to make a firearm "safe".

 

[Spock]

You can't when you don't use any. A what if scenario is a hypothetical. Not a fact.
hints don't assume people breaking into your house or just there for a hug.
it's not relevant. I'm incapable of reading people's minds so therefore I don't know what they're doing. It could be to murder me it could because they want a hug why should I wait around to find out?
opinion noted who cares but my arguments look like to you just counter argument please instead of telling me your opinion about it.
maybe that's because you believe a lie and Truth being told to you confuses you.
wow you discovered the purpose of weapons well done next week will work on shapes.

Posing a threat to others specifically writing criminals is precisely the reason he had a gun there in the first place.

But oh no nobody can pose a threat to your precious criminals.

Who did he shoot up a pedophile, a wife beater and that third guy who had an illegal firearm he shot people that posed a threat much greater and much more sinister. Because that's the type of person who engages in rioting.
being outside of your dwelling doesn't mean criminals have the right to assault or kill you.
right stand your ground is about self-defense favoring the other party is favoring criminal behavior. You don't send your ground against someone who's not engaging in any sort of criminal behavior.
I cherish the NRA for its ability to distract you from the people who are real threat to you.

Have fun beating that horse carts into dust this stay the hell away from the real gun rights organizations.

Not interested. Talk to your lawyer after you make an ill-advised decision to shoot an innocent who ends up in your house. Good Luck.

 

[RF667799]

No.
You assume that any activity by which an injury can occur is inherently dangerous. That is not correct. Negligence, inattention, lack of skill etc result in all manner of activity resulting in injury or death. Inherently dangerous refers to forces or conditions beyond the control of the individual that cannot be obviated. Once a projectile leaves a firearm it cannot be controlled even by the most skilled or cautious shooter. The closest comparison is probably a bow and arrow.
All the activities you list typically can have risk substantially ameliorated by skill and caution. No so with a firearm. No one is ever skilled enough to make a firearm "safe".

Your private definition took a lot of rambling to arrive at the same special pleading where you started.

It's hilarious that you asked for a definition and then ignored it in favor of some convoluted private nonsense, though.

 

[CLAX1911]

This is like trying to get a child to explain why an injury happened. What happened JUST BEFORE all this persecution of Rittenhouse occurred?

some piece of shit pedophile tried to grab his gun or you can tell by the burn mark on his hand.

Quick lesson for the profoundly stupid people that probably should have not survived long enough to have this encounter but if you try to grab a gun from somebody who has a gun you're probably going to be shot. But then again I think the guy wanted to die.

Rittenhouse set up the conditions for the confrontation and his actions led directly to the deaths of others.

That's not a crime it's not wrong at all. Bring a gun and standing in defense of businesses versus criminals that want to damage businesses is an honorable thing.

I don't envy Rittenhouse having to shoot that shit bags. But I'm not sorry that died they did a stupid thing by being there and ****ing with a guy with a gun. Perhaps they were suicidal.

 

[Spock]

Nobody twisted their arms to confront him. If you wear a Che tee shirt to a VFW hall, is it your fault if someone breaks your nose? You set up the conditions for that confrontation to occur, right?

No. People are responsible for their actions. Rittenhouse is responsible for lethal force that could have been avoided if he had a morsel of conscience or morality.
He brought a lethal weapon to a demonstration and created the conditions that made him a threat to others.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not interested.

incompetence will do that to you. Just so you know you'll never gain competence by running away.

Talk to your lawyer after you make an ill-advised decision to shoot an innocent who ends up in your house. Good Luck.

what would I need a lawyer for it wouldn't be a crime unless they were invited.

 

[CLAX1911]

No. People are responsible for their actions. Rittenhouse is responsible for lethal force that could have been avoided if he had a morsel of conscience or morality.

unless they're dirty commit arson assault and possibly murder.

He shot a pedophile a wife beater and someone who was in the process of committing us help with a deadly weapon. Why then is the sympathy with a criminals in their criminal behavior.

This is why you'll never get anywhere you are pro criminal you are citing with the criminals and their criminal activity and saying a non-criminal who didn't do anything wrong had no business being there because that's criminal territory.

This is why we've had 6 million more people buy guns in the last couple of years people have the thoughts you've just expressed here.

He brought a lethal weapon to a demonstration and created the conditions that made him a threat to others.

again that's the point. Making yourself a threat to criminals who are engaging in criminal behavior is good it is morally correct.

You are just on the side of criminals.

 

[RF667799]

No. People are responsible for their actions. Rittenhouse is responsible for lethal force that could have been avoided if he had a morsel of conscience or morality.
He brought a lethal weapon to a demonstration and created the conditions that made him a threat to others.

You brought a Che tee shirt to a VFW hall. The predominantly Cuban membership perceived you as a threat, and so your broken nose is your fault. And if you harm anyone trying to break your nose....well...that's your fault as well.

It's hilarious though, that you constantly bitch about self defense and here you are trying to justify attacking someone.

Oh...and everyone involved had a lethal weapon, so you fail on that as well.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Written by John Lott Jr., a notorious gun rights advocate whose work has been widely criticized. No thanks.

Can’t attack the data so attack the messenger. Typical of your “team”.

 

[Lursa]

No.

No what? The definitions are wrong?

You assume that any activity by which an injury can occur is inherently dangerous. That is not correct. Negligence, inattention, lack of skill etc result in all manner of activity resulting in injury or death. Inherently dangerous refers to forces or conditions beyond the control of the individual that cannot be obviated. Once a projectile leaves a firearm it cannot be controlled even by the most skilled or cautious shooter. The closest comparison is probably a bow and arrow.

That's not what the definition said. So...why bother asking if you're going to make up your own, out of convenience? And why would it be valid to the discussion over the proper one?

All the activities you list typically can have risk substantially ameliorated by skill and caution. No so with a firearm. No one is ever skilled enough to make a firearm "safe".

So can firearm ownership and use.

Proof: 400 million guns in the US, ~35,000 gun deaths in the US/yr. And half to 2/3 of those are intentional suicides, so not related to inherent danger.

No one is ever skilled enough to prevent accidents in any of the other things I used as examples either.

So...What is the distinction? What is the argument you are using "inherently dangerous" related to regarding firearms?

 

[JMB1911A1]

No. Law enforcement never uses lethal force unless there is a credible threat of violence against a person.

Never? That means zero.

1) Philando Castile

1>0

You are wrong as usual.

 

[Rucker61]

Never? That means zero.

1) Philando Castile

1>0

You are wrong as usual.

Hell, just Google "Aurora police death".

 

[Spock]

No what? The definitions are wrong?


That's not what the definition said. So...why bother asking if you're going to make up your own, out of convenience? And why would it be valid to the discussion over the proper one?


So can firearm ownership and use.

I explained your misconceptions. You do not understand the concept. As I mentioned listing everything that can result in injury or death to the participant is incorrect and not representative of an "inherently dangerous" Sorry. Swimming alone is not inherently dangerous because it does not endanger others in spite of the actions setting up injury to oneself.

 

[CLAX1911]

You brought a Che tee shirt to a VFW hall. The predominantly Cuban membership perceived you as a threat, and so your broken nose is your fault. And if you harm anyone trying to break your nose....well...that's your fault as well.

It's hilarious though, that you constantly bitch about self defense and here you are trying to justify attacking someone.

Oh...and everyone involved had a lethal weapon, so you fail on that as well.

They don't like self-defense because it causes consequences for criminals.

Essentially they don't want to pay consequences for their actions.

Consequences should be for non criminals and criminals should be able to brain free and have riots and loot and steal and murder and rape with no police and no arms citizens to stop them.

I don't know why they support this maybe they think it makes them seem woke.

 

[Lursa]

I explained your misconceptions. You do not understand the concept. As I mentioned listing everything that can result in injury or death to the participant is incorrect and not representative of an "inherently dangerous" Sorry. Swimming alone is not inherently dangerous because it does not endanger others in spite of the actions setting up injury to oneself.

LOL Yes, you tried. But you were attempting to 'correct' the dictionary, not me.

And when did "endanger others" enter into the equation? Now you're moving the goal posts. The dictionary definitions dont mention it either.

Sorry, stop trying to box in the discussion until you can corral yourself a safe place to argue from. If you couldnt use 'inherently dangerous' properly in the discussion, you shouldnt have used it at all.

What is the distinction? What is the argument you are using "inherently dangerous" related to regarding firearms? (I suggest responding directly to my statements/examples Posts 4443, 4445, 4457 for reference).

 

[CLAX1911]

I explained your misconceptions.

was your explanation horse shit like it typically is? If so when I'm leaning heavily in that direction probably shouldn't expect much.

I would recommend some intellectual honesty but you do you.

You do not understand the concept. As I mentioned listing everything that can result in injury or death to the participant is incorrect and not representative of an "inherently dangerous" Sorry. Swimming alone is not inherently dangerous because it does not endanger others in spite of the actions setting up injury to oneself.

the point of owning firms or any weapon throughout history that could be used against a person it's to be a threat to people who seek to act against the person holding weapons.

That's the purpose of all of them in history ever existing that's why we develop them that's why we make them and that's why we buy them.

If you don't want to be killed with weapon don't screw around with people that have weapons. Stopping that sort of thing is exactly the sole purpose of why they exist in the first place.

It's really simple.

 

[CLAX1911]

I explained your misconceptions. You do not understand the concept. As I mentioned listing everything that can result in injury or death to the participant is incorrect and not representative of an "inherently dangerous" Sorry. Swimming alone is not inherently dangerous because it does not endanger others in spite of the actions setting up injury to oneself.

Let's put it in simpler terms. If you go harass a crocodile in the crocodile bites you the crocodile is not wrong you are. And if it bites your arm off you deserved it.

Do you know how I avoid getting my arm bitten off by crocodiles? I don't **** with crocodiles.

It really is simple. The crocodile doesn't need its teeth removed because some people are idiots we need to point and laugh at the idiot who loses their arm for doing something stupid and hope that they learn from their mistake. If they choose not to learn then hopefully the crocodile will eat them because feeding their crocodile is probably a good use for them I just hope it happens before they breed.

 

[Daddyo]

My post= "BTW, should the residents of Gaza have keep and bear militia arms to prevent tyranny?"
He asserts that guns are needed by citizens to resist "tyranny". I argue that firearms by civilians are almost exclusively used to control others by intimidation, for vigilantism and crime. Hence, my question regarding Gaza. Are you arguing that civilian guns are a good thing? in Gaza? Gaza's civilian firearms were used against Israel.

You have already been told that there are far more positive uses than negative. Guns are used millions of times per day by police, armed guards, and civilians like me to prevent violent crime. Controlling a piece of shit criminal from perpetrating a crime upon me or my family is a good thing bud. Hate to burst your criminal loving bubble.

Guns are needed to protect ourselves from recidivist scumbags that you leftists continue to release upon the innocent civilians of this country number 1.

Guns are needed next to prevent leftist filth from jailing innocent civilians who refuse to get vaccinated.

Finally guns are needed to remind politicians that should they try to usurp our constitution the costs would be very high.