DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 301 - 325 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/08/2013 05:54:34 PM · #301
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Adam, if you'd just acknowledge that guns ARE dangerous, we'd all have a lot more respect for you. Of COURSE they are dangerous! So are cars, for that matter.


Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller.

C'mon, be RATIONAL! It won't cost you anything. These are dangerous things! It's why people need to be TAUGHT to use them and respect them. It's why we HAVE things like gun-safety classes and driver education.


I'm with you on this - they can be very dangerous - just like a car, or circular saw.

No reason to not encourage training and safety practices.
01/08/2013 05:58:53 PM · #302
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Adam, if you'd just acknowledge that guns ARE dangerous, we'd all have a lot more respect for you. Of COURSE they are dangerous! So are cars, for that matter.


Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller.

C'mon, be RATIONAL! It won't cost you anything. It's why people need to be TAUGHT to use them and respect them. It's why we HAVE things like gun-safety classes and driver education.


Now Robert...finally something I agree with. I am a firm believer in gun safety. It should be taught in our schools from a very young age. I got my 1st .22 when I was 5 or 6. I had already started learning gun safety well before that time. I have also had hunter saftey and so many gun safety and handling classes it would make your head spin.
01/08/2013 06:10:30 PM · #303
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I am a firm believer in gun safety. It should be taught in our schools from a very young age. .


...considering where American and Canadian students rank in the realm of academic skills... that would not be first in my list of priorities. Read This

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 18:11:45.
01/08/2013 06:10:42 PM · #304
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Adam, if you'd just acknowledge that guns ARE dangerous, we'd all have a lot more respect for you. Of COURSE they are dangerous! So are cars, for that matter.


Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller.

C'mon, be RATIONAL! It won't cost you anything. It's why people need to be TAUGHT to use them and respect them. It's why we HAVE things like gun-safety classes and driver education.


Now Robert...finally something I agree with. I am a firm believer in gun safety. It should be taught in our schools from a very young age. I got my 1st .22 when I was 5 or 6. I had already started learning gun safety well before that time. I have also had hunter saftey and so many gun safety and handling classes it would make your head spin.

Great! Fantastic! Now make me a happy camper and retract the following, inane statement.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The weapons are not a dangerous product.

I'll admire you for it!
01/08/2013 06:14:18 PM · #305
I am still a firm believer that the person behind the weapon is dangerous. However with the proper training that same person could become competant behind that weapon.
01/08/2013 06:22:59 PM · #306
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I am still a firm believer that the person behind the weapon is dangerous. However with the proper training that same person could become competant behind that weapon.


Competent at what? Making a weapon non-dangerous??
01/08/2013 06:24:02 PM · #307
I think Cowboy is saying that, outside of radioactive substances, and a few other very select items, almost no product is, in and of itself, dangerous.

It's all in the use and handling..
01/08/2013 06:31:37 PM · #308
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.


A stupid argument to make to folks who feel less safe AND less free in an environment with so many guns.


And I bet you FEEL really good about going through the airport too huh? Too bad it's all just a show.


I'd say it's a matter of differing perceptions, except that the actual numbers, the statistics, are on my side, because in places where there are fewer guns, or no guns, we are actually safer and therefore free of the threat of death by firearm. This is a fact, although I know you'll go on ignoring it.
01/08/2013 06:33:34 PM · #309
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:



Let's see, who would you rather take a bullet to the face? Guys like this, who need deadly weapons to play with like toys, and who are responsible for this country's inability to make sensible gun laws, or 5- and 6-year-olds in their kindergarten class?

Logic indeed.

Oh, and the feeling (re: your ignorance and attitude) is mutual.


Well, I suppose if I had to choose, I would say that the user of the gun should be more likely to be injured, given that the risk is chosen by that person.

Of course, I don't see any reason that we have to shoot either one in the face, and unlike you, I'd simply prefer that no-one is shot, AND we're still allowed to have firearms.

Your logic here is effectively "guns=people shot in face", which is about as sensable as knives="people stabbed in groin"

..


"Guns=people shot in face" is certainly the case sometimes, as in Newtown, etc.
01/08/2013 06:35:51 PM · #310
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:



Let's see, who would you rather take a bullet to the face? Guys like this, who need deadly weapons to play with like toys, and who are responsible for this country's inability to make sensible gun laws, or 5- and 6-year-olds in their kindergarten class?

Logic indeed.

Oh, and the feeling (re: your ignorance and attitude) is mutual.


Well, I suppose if I had to choose, I would say that the user of the gun should be more likely to be injured, given that the risk is chosen by that person.

Of course, I don't see any reason that we have to shoot either one in the face, and unlike you, I'd simply prefer that no-one is shot, AND we're still allowed to have firearms.



I'd also prefer that no one is shot, and there's a very easy way to accomplish that, which you oppose.

01/08/2013 06:38:37 PM · #311
Originally posted by Cory:

I think Cowboy is saying that, outside of radioactive substances, and a few other very select items, almost no product is, in and of itself, dangerous.

It's all in the use and handling..

What kind of a through-the-looking-glass world do you people live in, where you can say, with a straight face, that an object designed to kill is not dangerous? This is just willfully obtuse.

Originally posted by Lewis Caroll:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
01/08/2013 06:39:10 PM · #312
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

how would you like the freedom of speach revoked....or how about freedom of religon


There are restrictions on both.
01/08/2013 06:40:34 PM · #313
Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller. A hammer doesn't pound in a nail (or someone's skull) by itself.
And we're back to the semantic gymnastics yet again.


Exactly. By the simple logic that says guns are dangerous, being near a police officer should be the most dangerous place conceivable.
01/08/2013 06:50:34 PM · #314
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:



Let's see, who would you rather take a bullet to the face? Guys like this, who need deadly weapons to play with like toys, and who are responsible for this country's inability to make sensible gun laws, or 5- and 6-year-olds in their kindergarten class?

Logic indeed.

Oh, and the feeling (re: your ignorance and attitude) is mutual.


Well, I suppose if I had to choose, I would say that the user of the gun should be more likely to be injured, given that the risk is chosen by that person.

Of course, I don't see any reason that we have to shoot either one in the face, and unlike you, I'd simply prefer that no-one is shot, AND we're still allowed to have firearms.

Your logic here is effectively "guns=people shot in face", which is about as sensable as knives="people stabbed in groin"

..


"Guns=people shot in face" is certainly the case sometimes, as in Newtown, etc.


Yep, that gun loaded itself, walked itself out of the house, broke into that school and fired on those little kids all by itself, didn't it?
01/08/2013 06:55:02 PM · #315
I've been reading about a prohibition on the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition that's in effect in some places, like Australia, where those who like to "play" with these weapons can still go to a state-sanctioned controlled environment and use them, like a little "gun playground." Given that these weapons aren't necessary for hunting or self-defense, would there be any objection by the gun lovers to such a restriction in this country? If so, why?
01/08/2013 07:01:06 PM · #316
Originally posted by Spork99:

Yep, that gun loaded itself, walked itself out of the house, broke into that school and fired on those little kids all by itself, didn't it?

So clearly you agree that guns are only dangerous when in the hands of people, so that must mean that the way to render them truly harmless is to keep them out of the hands of poeple.

Many things are dangerous, but only a few are designed to intentionally be so. Guns have one purpose, to kill, injure, or coerce by threat of same; all other activites (target shooting, etc.) are subsidiary to that primary purpose. The same cannot be said of cars, hammers, toasters, or any of the other deadly hazards we encounter in daily life.
01/08/2013 07:05:41 PM · #317
Originally posted by Spork99:

Yep, that gun loaded itself, walked itself out of the house, broke into that school and fired on those little kids all by itself, didn't it?


Guns enable people to kill people quite easily.

Maybe we can move off this point now?
01/08/2013 07:08:33 PM · #318
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Yep, that gun loaded itself, walked itself out of the house, broke into that school and fired on those little kids all by itself, didn't it?

So clearly you agree that guns are only dangerous when in the hands of people, so that must mean that the way to render them truly harmless is to keep them out of the hands of poeple.

Many things are dangerous, but only a few are designed to intentionally be so. Guns have one purpose, to kill, injure, or coerce by threat of same; all other activites (target shooting, etc.) are subsidiary to that primary purpose. The same cannot be said of cars, hammers, toasters, or any of the other deadly hazards we encounter in daily life.


Guns are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people.

You say that like coercion by threat of injury or death is always bad...it's not. Coercing an intruder to get out of my apartment is not a bad thing.

01/08/2013 07:12:54 PM · #319
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Yep, that gun loaded itself, walked itself out of the house, broke into that school and fired on those little kids all by itself, didn't it?


Guns enable people to kill people quite easily.

Maybe we can move off this point now?


No.

They also make it possible for the weak to defend themselves against the strong or the many. They let a woman defend her children against an armed intruder for example.
01/08/2013 07:14:07 PM · #320
Originally posted by Spork99:

Guns are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people.

Or drunk people. Or ill-informed people. Or righteous citizens caught up in the adrenaline rush of the moment of confrontation. Etc etc etc...

GUNS ARE DANGEROUS! It's undeniable. I'm not even saying this as a justification for "getting rid of guns" (I've never suggested or supported that, in this thread) but just as a matter of fact. It absolutely stuns me that you guys are trying to say they're not, when the whole PURPOSE of guns as defensive weaponry is that they ARE dangerous!
01/08/2013 07:21:26 PM · #321
A couple of recent editorial cartoons ...



01/08/2013 07:32:47 PM · #322
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller. A hammer doesn't pound in a nail (or someone's skull) by itself.
And we're back to the semantic gymnastics yet again.


Exactly. By the simple logic that says guns are dangerous, being near a police officer should be the most dangerous place conceivable.


I guess you missed this post...

Originally posted by Kelli:

So many accidents... link. If a cop can't figure out how to not have an accident with a gun, what hope is there for everyone else?
01/08/2013 07:50:34 PM · #323
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

I think Cowboy is saying that, outside of radioactive substances, and a few other very select items, almost no product is, in and of itself, dangerous.

It's all in the use and handling..

What kind of a through-the-looking-glass world do you people live in, where you can say, with a straight face, that an object designed to kill is not dangerous? This is just willfully obtuse.

Originally posted by Lewis Caroll:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”


Would you object to me building an guillotine?

Besides, I damned well stated, directly, that I think they are dangerous. I was just attempting to bridge communications between you two who apparently aren't understanding each other. Of course, at first I thought it was Cowboy being thick - now I suspect it may be both of you.

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 19:51:35.
01/08/2013 07:52:44 PM · #324
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller. A hammer doesn't pound in a nail (or someone's skull) by itself.
And we're back to the semantic gymnastics yet again.


Exactly. By the simple logic that says guns are dangerous, being near a police officer should be the most dangerous place conceivable.


*I* certainly feel that way....
01/08/2013 07:54:28 PM · #325
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I've been reading about a prohibition on the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition that's in effect in some places, like Australia, where those who like to "play" with these weapons can still go to a state-sanctioned controlled environment and use them, like a little "gun playground." Given that these weapons aren't necessary for hunting or self-defense, would there be any objection by the gun lovers to such a restriction in this country? If so, why?


As long as they're willing to bring the gun to me? No problem at all. Otherwise, this is equivalent to saying that "You're free to say whatever you'd like, as long as you make sure no-one hears you say it"...
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 03:04:36 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 03:04:36 AM EDT.