Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm?

Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/3/2014 6:44:11 PM)
To be fair I have only run into one person that I can think of who preaches this, but does he have followers? If you agree with him please explain why.

joether -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 6:49:12 AM)
What are we defining as 'a weapon'? Could talking to someone, be a weapon? There are plenty of therapists and sales people (not to mention law enforcement) that can turn violent or potentially violent people from action(s) simply by speaking to them. Could someone that has studied martial arts, be able to disable the person, and thus, avoid violence? As I read that topic sentence, it feels like a run-on sentence to me (I'm not bashing for the grammar here). "Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon, than a firearm? Or to avoid violence with a firearm?" Could you state in another way, so I (and others) can understand what your really asking? Sounds like it could be an interesting topic for discussion.....

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 8:38:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether What are we defining as 'a weapon'? Could talking to someone, be a weapon? There are plenty of therapists and sales people (not to mention law enforcement) that can turn violent or potentially violent people from action(s) simply by speaking to them. Could someone that has studied martial arts, be able to disable the person, and thus, avoid violence? As I read that topic sentence, it feels like a run-on sentence to me (I'm not bashing for the grammar here). "Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon, than a firearm? Or to avoid violence with a firearm?" Could you state in another way, so I (and others) can understand what your really asking? Sounds like it could be an interesting topic for discussion..... Specific case. He stated that putting someone in the emergency room with a broomstick was better than running them off by putting my hand on my gun and scaring them off without a fight. He stated that it would have been better to tear into them with a 2x4 than to show them that further hostility was ill advised. I am not talking about harsh words, I am talking about physical harm. Before I put my hand on my gun during the incident in question I had tried telling the individual repeatedly to leave my property (he had tried to sneak up on me at about 1 am) When he wouldn't listen and kept edging in on me I escalated my response. Result, nobody got hurt, no crime committed, no body has come after me in over three years.

kdsub -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:07:43 AM)
I am not even sure what is meant in the title to tell you the truth. But knowing you Bama I can guess. I think we can agree that when it comes to the misuse of any weapon it is not the weapon itself that causes the death or injury but the mind using it. My point has always been that when it comes to a sick mind we should do our best to keep weapons from their hands. The only way to do this is to classify the weapons very specifically according to their effectiveness as killing machines. Yes knives can kill...so can baseball bats...scissors...swords...and any number of devices...but none of them can kill as effectively as a gun...and none have the reach and the ability to kill at distance as a gun. Therefore guns should have more stringent controls in the same way as high explosives and poisonous chemicals for instance. However... our Constitution guarantees us the right to own guns... But why cannot people be reasonable about the controls that could at least limit the number of sick and evil minds that can posses and use these efficient killing machines? People always seem to complain about all the laws governing gun ownership saying all they need to do is enforce them. BUT the very same people who refuse to enforce the laws are the ones complaining. They refuse to see the real problems the proliferation of guns is causing in some areas of the country...only because they personally do not have these problems in their areas. The only answer they seem to have is more guns rather then sensible laws to at least attempt to keep guns from the hands of the insane and criminals. Instead of moving forward to a safe civilization with the rights to safely own firearms they want to go back in time to the wild west. The tragedy of all this is the vast majority of the opponents of sensible gun laws are good law abiding citizens. They see gun laws as a masked attempt to take way their guns rather than a way to make our civilization safer and still follow the Constitution of our land.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:23:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I am not even sure what is meant in the title to tell you the truth. But knowing you Bama I can guess. I think we can agree that when it comes to the misuse of any weapon it is not the weapon itself that causes the death or injury but the mind using it. My point has always been that when it comes to a sick mind we should do our best to keep weapons from their hands. The only way to do this is to classify the weapons very specifically according to their effectiveness as killing machines. Yes knives can kill...so can baseball bats...scissors...swords...and any number of devices...but none of them can kill as effectively as a gun...and none have the reach and the ability to kill at distance as a gun. Therefore guns should have more stringent controls in the same way as high explosives and poisonous chemicals for instance. However... our Constitution guarantees us the right to own guns... But why cannot people be reasonable about the controls that could at least limit the number of sick and evil minds that can posses and use these efficient killing machines? People always seem to complain about all the laws governing gun ownership saying all they need to do is enforce them. BUT the very same people who refuse to enforce the laws are the ones complaining. They refuse to see the real problems the proliferation of guns is causing in some areas of the country...only because they personally do not have these problems in their areas. The only answer they seem to have is more guns rather then sensible laws to at least attempt to keep guns from the hands of the insane and criminals. Instead of moving forward to a safe civilization with the rights to safely own firearms they want to go back in time to the wild west. The tragedy of all this is he vast majority of the opponents of sensible gun laws are good law abiding citizens. They see gun laws as a masked attempt to take way their guns rather than a way to make our civilization safer and still follow the Constitution of our land. No the Constitution protects the right to own, not just firearms, but weapons. And no the problem is that under the guise of stopping the sick evil people from having weapons is to stop the rest of us. You have to realize that the wild west wasn't the wild west. As is said in the intro to Tombstone the worst towns in the west (which sprung up before the law got there) had murder rates approaching modern day Detroit. The cities( which are the murder centers) have massive problems with gangs and drugs. This is what leads to the high crime rates. If you want to stop sick and evil people from getting guns why don't they prosecute people with a criminal record for trying to purchase one. Why don't they allow a diagnosis that a person is a menace to be included in the background check. Why do they violate the law and use the background checks to create databases on legitimate gun owners. The question in the OP is very simple. Is it, as I have been repeatedly and literally told, better, in self defense, to hospitalize a person with a none firearm, than, still in self defense, to run them off with a firearm and avoid any injury.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:27:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD To be fair I have only run into one person that I can think of who preaches this, but does he have followers? If you agree with him please explain why. Typical of you Bama.... yet another thread to support guns. But lets see.... If you are wanting to use a gun, then yes, anything is better than a gun because you are less likely to kill someone. If you are using the gun as a deterrent, then any other weapon would be just as effective as a deterrent so a gun is not necessary. But, as usual, you pontificate about guns being good and not harming but on the other hand you paint a scenario where there is harmful violence without a gun. Not exactly an equal comparison. Typical gundiot subterfuge. So to answer your headline... YES, absolutely!! It is better to harm with any other weapon than to harm with a gun.

Musicmystery -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:36:49 AM)
Actually, the title shows his usual divorce from logic: quote: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? So his options are: 1) harm with any other weapon [rather than] 2) avoid violence with a firearm There's no option for using a firearm here. It's a ridiculous straw man.

ResidentSadist -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:46:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Actually, the title shows his usual divorce from logic: quote: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? So his options are: 1) harm with any other weapon [rather than] 2) avoid violence with a firearm There's no option for using a firearm here. It's a ridiculous straw man. I think he meant that if you shoot someone dead, you avoid receiving any violence entirely ... verses getting close enough to stab the assailant and exposing yourself. And if you don't stab them in the throat, you just end up wounding them, hence you only harmed them. Whatever they meant, I'm in the "shoot them all and let god sort them out" category.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:46:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD To be fair I have only run into one person that I can think of who preaches this, but does he have followers? If you agree with him please explain why. Typical of you Bama.... yet another thread to support guns. But lets see.... If you are wanting to use a gun, then yes, anything is better than a gun because you are less likely to kill someone. If you are using the gun as a deterrent, then any other weapon would be just as effective as a deterrent so a gun is not necessary. But, as usual, you pontificate about guns being good and not harming but on the other hand you paint a scenario where there is harmful violence without a gun. Not exactly an equal comparison. Typical gundiot subterfuge. So to answer your headline... YES, absolutely!! It is better to harm with any other weapon than to harm with a gun. Since you are the idiot who made the claim that it is better to harm a person with a broomstick that to avoid violence with one of course you agree with the idea. I think that the less casualties the better. And since I have consistently used my firearms to avoid anyone being injured and you have had to injure at least one person that you bragged about my method clearly works better.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:55:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Since you are the idiot who made the claim that it is better to harm a person with a broomstick that to avoid violence with one of course you agree with the idea. I made no such claim. Try reading what I posted instead of putting your personal spin on it. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I think that the less casualties the better. Exactly!!! And since it is proven time and time again that the prolification of guns provide the highest rate of gun deaths, that should tell you that guns are indeed the most dangerous of all weapons.

dcnovice -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 10:59:50 AM)
quote: I have consistently used my firearms to avoid anyone being injured How often have you been in that situation?

Musicmystery -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:02:43 AM)
Interesting that he's apparently repeatedly in that position. What a coincidence. Whatever the truth, his logic deficiency extends to not understanding anecdotes don't constitute proof.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:10:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Actually, the title shows his usual divorce from logic: quote: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? So his options are: 1) harm with any other weapon [rather than] 2) avoid violence with a firearm There's no option for using a firearm here. It's a ridiculous straw man. I think he meant that if you shoot someone dead, you avoid receiving any violence entirely ... verses getting close enough to stab the assailant and exposing yourself. And if you don't stab them in the throat, you just end up wounding them, hence you only harmed them. Whatever they meant, I'm in the "shoot them all and let god sort them out" category. No I mean I have intimidated several people with clear hostile intent through the use of a firearm. No one got hurt, isn't that a prime objective? Those who say that the only use of a firearm is to kill don't know what they are talking about. The consistent result has been that while thinking I was unarmed they have been ready to do me harm, when they realized this would end up with them having lead poisoning they remembered somewhere else they needed to be, like right now. Thus the firearm avoided violence. I would consider shooting them to be violent and thus people like music and freedom would be right, but I have never had to go that far. The idea that if you don't shoot someone it doesn't count maybe an outgrowth of his lack spinal attributes.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:12:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Since you are the idiot who made the claim that it is better to harm a person with a broomstick that to avoid violence with one of course you agree with the idea. I made no such claim. Try reading what I posted instead of putting your personal spin on it. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I think that the less casualties the better. Exactly!!! And since it is proven time and time again that the prolification of guns provide the highest rate of gun deaths, that should tell you that guns are indeed the most dangerous of all weapons. But you have insisted that by preventing violence I have been wrong, contrary to what you believe most defensive uses of firearms results in no casualties. Yes firearms are more effective which is why they back down to a gun but they won't back down to a broomstick or a 2x4. The FBI says there are 650,000 defensive firearms uses a year, so obviously most of them end with no one being injured.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:14:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I have consistently used my firearms to avoid anyone being injured How often have you been in that situation? 4 times

Musicmystery -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:17:04 AM)
One might wonder why "several people" have "clear hostile intent" around you. Seems you attract a number well above average. You're still far from understanding basic logic and language -- once again you're making up a position for me I've never articulated, but you're assuming. The position I have articulated is that (1) you are seemingly incapable of coherent thought in the sense of understanding issues presented and responding to the actual points and issues raised, just as you've demonstrated here, again, (2) that you are obsessed with guns and gun issues nearly to the exclusion of all other conversation, and (3) that you frequently argue with people/positions who/that exist only in your head.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:39:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD But you have insisted that by preventing violence I have been wrong, I have said no such thing. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD contrary to what you believe most defensive uses of firearms results in no casualties. And it would be the same for most defensive use of any weapon. It just seems extraordinarily poignant that most use of weapons is not for defense but for attack and assault. And for gun use.... 20x higher in the US than any other civilized first-world country. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes firearms are more effective which is why they back down to a gun but they won't back down to a broomstick or a 2x4. A broomstick, probably not. But a broomstick with a decent sharp knife strapped on the end of it is useful. [:D] And a decent baseball bat or a good piece of 2x4 with nails in is quite a weapon. And yes, I've used both, to very good effect and not harmed anyone in the process. A gun would not have made the situation any better or easier and would have risked someone being shot. For 99.99999999999999999% of situations, a gun is just not necessary or needed. But of course, you don't see that and won't ever see that. For you, it's guns first and foremost and everything else is just waffle or irrelevant. [8\|] The only good use for a gun for a private citizen is to shoot pigeons off the roof.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:47:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD But you have insisted that by preventing violence I have been wrong, I have said no such thing. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD contrary to what you believe most defensive uses of firearms results in no casualties. And it would be the same for most defensive use of any weapon. It just seems extraordinarily poignant that most use of weapons is not for defense but for attack and assault. And for gun use.... 20x higher in the US than any other civilized first-world country. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes firearms are more effective which is why they back down to a gun but they won't back down to a broomstick or a 2x4. A broomstick, probably not. But a broomstick with a decent sharp knife strapped on the end of it is useful. [:D] And a decent baseball bat or a good piece of 2x4 with nails in is quite a weapon. And yes, I've used both, to very good effect and not harmed anyone in the process. A gun would not have made the situation any better or easier and would have risked someone being shot. For 99.99999999999999999% of situations, a gun is just not necessary or needed. But of course, you don't see that and won't ever see that. For you, it's guns first and foremost and everything else is just waffle or irrelevant. [8\|] The only good use for a gun for a private citizen is to shoot pigeons off the roof. Again you are wrong firearms are used far more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. A broomstick with a knife tied to it? You carry one of those around? You keep a 2x4 handy at all times? And you told me a fanciful tale about how the broomstick alone was all you needed. When working at the Sheriff's office I was directed to carry at all times (and no, I was not a Deputy) I think my captain at the time knew a little more about this stuff than you do.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 11:58:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Again you are wrong firearms are used far more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. Citation please?? That's not what I see in the news, or reported anywhere. I see the exact opposite. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A broomstick with a knife tied to it? You carry one of those around? It is always handy where it can be grabbed easily. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You keep a 2x4 handy at all times? Yes... with 4" nails embedded in it and the heads sharpened to a very cruel point! quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you told me a fanciful tale about how the broomstick alone was all you needed. Not a broomstick - a normal yard broom; and yes. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When working at the Sheriff's office I was directed to carry at all times (and no, I was not a Deputy) I think my captain at the time knew a little more about this stuff than you do. And you live in a country that is prolific with guns in the hands of nutcases and mentally ill people. You don't even enforce your own laws effectively. In that situation, that is severe cause for concern. When I lived there, I never felt comfortable walking down the street on my own. If I had emigrated to the US, I would be worried about my kids going to school or coming home safely and alive. I have no such worries here because Joe Average doesn't have guns and even the criminals don't have guns. I am safe. My kids are safe. The schools don't look like a prison. Our beat cops don't have guns and our shopping malls don't have armed security guards. I can't say that of the US.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/4/2014 12:08:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Again you are wrong firearms are used far more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. Citation please?? That's not what I see in the news, or reported anywhere. I see the exact opposite. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A broomstick with a knife tied to it? You carry one of those around? It is always handy where it can be grabbed easily. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You keep a 2x4 handy at all times? Yes... with 4" nails embedded in it and the heads sharpened to a very cruel point! quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you told me a fanciful tale about how the broomstick alone was all you needed. Not a broomstick - a normal yard broom; and yes. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When working at the Sheriff's office I was directed to carry at all times (and no, I was not a Deputy) I think my captain at the time knew a little more about this stuff than you do. And you live in a country that is prolific with guns in the hands of nutcases and mentally ill people. You don't even enforce your own laws effectively. In that situation, that is severe cause for concern. When I lived there, I never felt comfortable walking down the street on my own. If I had emigrated to the US, I would be worried about my kids going to school or coming home safely and alive. I have no such worries here because Joe Average doesn't have guns and even the criminals don't have guns. I am safe. My kids are safe. The schools don't look like a prison. Our beat cops don't have guns and our shopping malls don't have armed security guards. I can't say that of the US. Of course I should be penalized because someone else breaks the law. I should be penalized because the laws that would stop much of this are not effectively enforced. I should carry my sword around because it is so much better to chop someones head off than to scare them away. I should be penalized because I don't want big brother to take care of everything for me. It doesn't matter that I carry responsibly because some one some where may not.I want to thank you again for going back to merry old England, it make me feel better than it makes you feel.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375