Fine Bernie, you go right ahead and dismiss the statistics I linked to. You get no argument from me. :)

I think he got the answers to his questions wrong, except for cars.

I don't think he did. Note that Bernie used the term "sole purpose". Of course knives and hammers can be used for sinister means, but that isn't their sole purpose. Knives can be used for cutting materials, and hammers can be used for building. There's no reason to ban these items for being used for killing (though once all the guns are gone and murders still happen, albeit in smaller numbers, they'll be next).

Guns, on the other hand, only have a singular purpose, even if used defensively.

Fine Bernie, you go right ahead and dismiss the statistics I linked to. You get no argument from me. :)

I think he got the answers to his questions wrong, except for cars.

I don't think he did. Note that Bernie used the term "sole purpose". Of course knives and hammers can be used for sinister means, but that isn't their sole purpose. Knives can be used for cutting materials, and hammers can be used for building. There's no reason to ban these items for being used for killing (though once all the guns are gone and murders still happen, albeit in smaller numbers, they'll be next).

Guns, on the other hand, only have a singular purpose, even if used defensively.

When designed, er invented or discovered, those items sole purpose was to kill for food. Yes they have been changed many many times, but their only purpose was killing when originally designed. Bernie did not restrict knife to say an apple coring knife, nor would that be a fair comparison. Just like gun has been changed into airsoft gun, or paint ball gun, which are not lethal.

The point is that comparisons of fruits to vegetables is not useful for moving the discussion forward.

If you want to ban a terrible killing machine, get rid of tobacco!

---

Strange that no americans tell the story about cowboys moving cattle through the US.
The reason they had a gun was to if a cow was injured badly during the moving they had to put the cow down.
There are still cowboys that need guns for that purpose.

PS. I have also been a cowboy. About 10 years old without a gun.
I still remember Diana that broke her hip and fell into a ditch...

Why that is because they carry two firearms. A pistol for the reason you state along with killing rattlesnakes and other vermin. A rifle to kill wolves so they don't prey upon the herd. Also useful on cattle rustlers.

---

Why that is because they carry two firearms. A pistol for the reason you state along with killing rattlesnakes and other vermin. A rifle to kill wolves so they don't prey upon the herd. Also useful on cattle rustlers.

Which means that you can rule out the so called "Cowboy Culture".
Unless you listen to actor Charlton Heston pathetic speech 'Cold Dead Hand'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGPDz0Pu5ZQ

Fine Bernie, you go right ahead and dismiss the statistics I linked to. You get no argument from me. :)

I think he got the answers to his questions wrong, except for cars.

I don't think he did. Note that Bernie used the term "sole purpose". Of course knives and hammers can be used for sinister means, but that isn't their sole purpose. Knives can be used for cutting materials, and hammers can be used for building. There's no reason to ban these items for being used for killing (though once all the guns are gone and murders still happen, albeit in smaller numbers, they'll be next).

Guns, on the other hand, only have a singular purpose, even if used defensively.

When designed, er invented or discovered, those items sole purpose was to kill for food.

Indeed, but Bernie didn't say the sole reason for their invention. He specifically said sole purpose, meaning 'as we use them now'.

Yes they have been changed many many times, but their only purpose was killing when originally designed. Bernie did not restrict knife to say an apple coring knife, nor would that be a fair comparison. Just like gun has been changed into airsoft gun, or paint ball gun, which are not lethal.

I think it's obvious within the context of the discussion, it's the lethality of the device (cars, knives, surgery vs. guns) that is at point. Siran's argument is that cars and bad surgery kill more than guns do, so we should ban those first. Bernie's argument is that surgery isn't done with the intent to kill. Obviously airsoft guns and paint ball guns do not fall anywhere into this.

The point is that comparisons of fruits to vegetables is not useful for moving the discussion forward.

Indeed - and that was Bernie's point. You shouldn't compare the number of deaths caused by surgery or car accidents to mass killings done by guns, then say we should get rid of all those things before we get rid of guns. That type of logic just makes the person with that position look insane.

If you want to ban a terrible killing machine, get rid of tobacco!

Actually, tobacco wasn't a problem for me to give up. It's the damned Pepsi.

If you want to ban a terrible killing machine, get rid of tobacco!

Something various governments are trying to do. Obviously the big tobacco companies are taking them to court so it is a slow process.

Here in the UK you can only really smoke in the street or at home in private.

You cannot smoke in your car if there are young children present.

You cannot even smoke in a company vehicle, be it car van or truck.

Shops cannot display cigarettes, tobacco etc. they have to keep them behind closed displays

I used to be a heavy smoker, had a warning chest problem in 2008 and gave up.

So yes, slowly we are taking steps to get rid of it, but it won't happen overnight.

Sorry if my comparisons were not clear, I had used the phrase "sole purpose" to try and point out what I meant. I had believed that for an intelligent discussion, people would get my point.

I do not say that you need to ban guns, however just like a car, you should have training and need a licence.

If that is not acceptable then drivers should all be petitioning for the abolition of any sort of driving tests and checks that they are fit to drive.

---

OOPS

Not possible surely? :-)

-[ snip ]-Siran's argument is that cars and bad surgery kill more than guns do, so we should ban those first.-[ snip ]-

WRONG!!!!!

I just knew someone like you would completely GET MY POINT WRONG!

Nowhere did I say we should ban those other items FIRST. Don't put words into my mouth.

I was pointing out facts, facts which most everyone here continue to ignore, and I was being facetious about banning those items.

My point was that there are many more things in the world that kill while guns are only a minor player. Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are many more items in the world that bad people will use to kill another person other than a gun.

Now, Sir, tell me. How do we ban disease which is the biggest killer over all other methods?

My other point not made is don't punish law abiding citizens by taking their guns or rights away. I say: let the U.S.A. bring ALL it's military back to our country and protect our citizens and let the rest of the world fend for itself. How's that sound? Someone said we should pull out of NATO. Perhaps we should. I can just see all of Europe come crawling to us for help because Russia or China are pounding on them.

Peace! :)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

-[ snip ]-

-[ snip ]-

I do not say that you need to ban guns, however just like a car, you should have training and need a licence.

-[ snip ]-

Hi Bernie,

Hear, hear!! Now that I can agree with 100%. Thank you, that is the best thing anyone here has said to date.

Thanks Bernie! :)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Possibly the problem is "freedom"

Freedom to do as you wish without any intervention.

Now I have no idea how it works in the USA, but here, if you are diagnosed with any illness that might impede your ability to drive. The doctor/medical practitioner has to report this fact to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), and the licence will be suspended or possibly totally revoked.

This happened to my father when his eyesight failed.

Medical conitions reportable to the DVLA

I assume that this cannot happen in the USA because no one else has the right to know these things.

To me the same rules should apply to firearms, pass a stringent test both practical and written before you obtain your licence and that licence lays down things like proper storage and that licence can be revoked for medical or criminal reasons. (same as a car)

Now it will never stop the criminals, they will obtain what they need, guns vehicles tools etc illegally, but it needs to harder for them to do so.

As I have seen, reading these threads that the "right to bear arms" is deeply embedded in the culture.

However it seems that better control is required, but is not possible due to the Constitution, if that is so then this thread can go nowhere really.

---

Just to clarify our regulations.

Take cardiac problems, I had to notify DVLA all because I hold PSV & HGV licenses. Had I only been a car driver, I did not have to notify anyone, but it was suggested by that government site that it was best not to drive & only recommence when told it was safe to by a doctor.

If you want to ban a terrible killing machine, get rid of tobacco!

And Alcohol.

Failed in the past, and will fail in the future. Or as Einstein brilliantly observed regarding continuing failure...

Perhaps we should try Control?

Treat Tobacco, Pot and other Drugs, as we do Alcohol (Hard Liqueur, not Beer).

Only sold 'Specialty' Stores.

But there does need to be tighter controls on alcohol, in fact from my point of view more that tobacco. I've had two relatives and a very good friend killed by drunken drivers and another relative confined to a wheelchair due to a drunken lout.

edit] And I've just seen this Alcohol-related deaths up 4% in one year

Local government body shocked by figures that show almost 1.1m diseases or injuries linked to drinking were recorded between 2013-14 and 2014-15

Alcohol-related deaths in England have risen by 4% in a year and by 13% in a decade, according to figures published on Thursday

Tighter controls are also needed on the supply of arms.

OOPS

-[ snip ]-Siran's argument is that cars and bad surgery kill more than guns do, so we should ban those first.-[ snip ]-

WRONG!!!!!

I just knew someone like you would completely GET MY POINT WRONG!

Nowhere did I say we should ban those other items FIRST. Don't put words into my mouth.

I was pointing out facts, facts which most everyone here continue to ignore, and I was being facetious about banning those items.

My point was that there are many more things in the world that kill while guns are only a minor player. Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are many more items in the world that bad people will use to kill another person other than a gun.

Now, Sir, tell me. How do we ban disease which is the biggest killer over all other methods?

My other point not made is don't punish law abiding citizens by taking their guns or rights away. I say: let the U.S.A. bring ALL it's military back to our country and protect our citizens and let the rest of the world fend for itself. How's that sound? Someone said we should pull out of NATO. Perhaps we should. I can just see all of Europe come crawling to us for help because Russia or China are pounding on them.

Peace! :)

Actually, I didn't get your point wrong at all. Yes, I know the argument is used as a facetious one, and that gun advocates are not actually arguing in favor of banning all those other things. Yes, I was already aware that the point of your argument is that other things have larger death tolls than guns. But even as you say that's not your argument, as I've bolded in your reply, you again make the assertion that we should ban disease, yet you don't seem to realize how using this statement to support your position actually weakens your argument because your readers are going to think you don't get it even if you're not actually suggesting what you're saying.

You may find this hard to believe, but I actually agree with your closing statement. I stated it in my previous posts here using different words, but I agree that banning guns altogether will not solve the problem, and only hurts responsible citizens who aren't the ones going out and killing everyone. Much in the same way that Prohibition failed because all it did was hurt people who wanted to drink responsibly continued to do so despite the law, banning guns would have much the same effect.

And dude, calm down. Stop TYPING EVERYTING IN ALL CAPS AND EXCLAIMATION POINTS!!!! while at the same time completely misunderstanding what the other person is saying. If you still can't understand why your argument is a failed one - even when I'm agreeing with you in the long run, then there's no need to accuse me of putting words in your mouth or getting your point wrong. Your point has been used by many others. It's not the first time I've seen it, and it just doesn't hold water even if you think it does.

If this correct, American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years, then what does it tell us.

Does it mean only the diehard gun lobby own firearms and at the same time each of them has more and more of them, as sales seem to be up?

Does it also mean that the majority of US citizens do realise owning firearms is not the answer?

So a poll of 1,001 Americans is indicative of 360,000,000 Americans.

R0TFLMA0!!

"Your check is in the mail."

---

...

So a poll of 1,001 Americans is indicative of 360,000,000 Americans.

R0TFLMA0!!

"Your check is in the mail."

Go find out about polls, about 1,000 is usually regarded as an adequate number, beyond that the costs outweigh the benefits.

So a poll of 1,001 Americans is indicative of 360,000,000 Americans.

R0TFLMA0!!

"Your check is in the mail."

Go find out about polls, about 1,000 is usually regarded as an adequate number, beyond that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Go for it then. Har!

Like a local poll recently here. It was about an agenda that directly affect working folks. The telephone poll was taken at 10:00AM with phone calls to residences in the local city. At 10:00AM working folks are at work not at home. So the poll only communicated with retired folks and stay at home folks.

Margin of error is a must to understand polls.

Yumm love that Kool-Aid.

;)

---

...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2016/jan/27/dont-trust-the-polls-the-systemic-issues-that-make-voter-surveys-unreliable

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/22/what-are-we-to-make-of-the-polls/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-blumenthal/polling-crisis-or-not-wer_b_10328648.html

---