All gun owners are willing to get their families killed

This is just an opinion, not complete bullshit flamebait and I demand that the moderators immediately delete any message that dares to disagree. :-)

But thanks for sharing.

Part of the cost of gunownership is that those you are closest to are actually more vulnerable. Guns kill more Americans than Al Queda possibly could.

then by guns in the house. Damn good thing I live in a one story home.

And some steamed milk on the side.

billbuckhead's statement ignores a couple of important facts:

- Most successful defensive uses of firearms do not involve killing a person or even firing the weapon,

- Some defensive uses of firearms may PREVENT family members from being killed.

Carry on with your pointless discussion.

Guns are used by wackos to keep their familes under a reign of terror. It only makes the paper when the shots are fired. This pseudo argument is a fraud because it cuts both ways and is hard to measure.

Guns are used by wackos to keep their familes under a reign of terror.

What a steaming pantload!

...for personal attacks. That's ok, as is the regular whining about how they are so oppressed here... :-)

You're *not* saying that someone is disabled in the intellect department, are you??

"OH NO, PACO!?!?!", just for anyone who has ever owned a noisy, obnoxious avian. The line comes to mind from time to time ...

.

I have no idea if you are or not.

...and I wasn't even calling the poster's opinion stupid but only the thread. Y'all may keep your handicapped parking permit, it looks like you need it. :-)

bring um on.

absolutely nothing at all.
Just like the start of this thread.

do you want me to prove it??

the number Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay got was done by adding up all the the gun deaths in King County, Washington(hand picked city by him) that were in the home 389(333 suicide), and dividing it by the number of bad guys killed in the home, 9.

9/389 = 43
Just for fun, non gun deaths in the home give us a ratio of 99 to 1.

The huge problem with that study is it only counts people that killed people who broke into their home. Most of the time you do not have to shoot someone.

The links below help prove the point, guns save lives, guns are not a danger in the home, you are not more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

gun nuts lied their ases off about the Kellerman study.

By the way, what kind of Democrat is trying to peddle crap from Crazy Bill Buckley?

The Kellerman study is anti gun(and it did not use the truth, go figure), I was proving it false, how did "gun nuts lie"??

Bill Buckley? never heard of the guy.

All parents that do not get thier children vacinnated want thier children to die.

All people that ride motorcycles want to be organ donors.

All people that do not own guns want to be victims.

Can we add some more stupid blanket statements?

Just an opionion as you say.

How about this one:

People are presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.

That opinion is widely held in most societies ...


"All parents that do not get thier children vacinnated want thier children to die."

Some unvaccinated children die of diseases that they could have been vaccinated against. The reasonably foreseeable consequence of not vaccinating children against potentially fatal disesases is ... death.

Of course, other children die, too, of lots of other causes. And there is a tiny risk involved in the vaccination itself. And by no means do all unvaccinated children die of diseases that they could have been vaccinated against. But heck, low though the risk may be, those potential consequences of taking it can be pretty damned serious. Most parents consider the risk of non-vaccination to be far too serious to take, no matter how low it is, and the risk of vaccination to be so minimal that it is worth taking.

"All people that ride motorcycles want to be organ donors."

Motorcyclists die when their motorcycles are struck by other vehicles or go "out of control". The reasonably foreseeable consequence of riding a motorcycle is ... becoming an organ donor.

Again, non-motorcyclists die, and motorcyclists die of other causes, and a very low proportion of motorcyclists die in motorcycle crashes. Still, low though the risk of the consequences occurring is, a lot of people regard it as sufficiently foreseeable, and the potential consequences as sufficiently serious, to avoid taking it. Particularly since they really have no reason to ride motorcycles anyway when there are less risky options available for achieving whatever their objective might be. Unlike the non-vaccination situation, what risk might be inherent in the alternative: non-motorcycle riding?? I mean, unless the alternative chosen is to walk down the wrong side of an unlit road at night wearing a black coat ...

"All people that do not own guns want to be victims."

People who do not want to own guns become victims? Hmm. Let's just be a little more specific here -- what we have to say, to create a proper analogy, is: people who do not want to own guns become victims of harm in situations where owning guns would have prevented them from being harmed.

After all, what we were really saying in the other cases was:

- All parents who do not get their children vaccinated want their children to die of diseases they could have been vaccinated against.
- All people who ride motorcycles want to become organ donors as a result of dying in a motorcycle crash.

(If people really just wanted their children to die, or wanted to become organ donors, they'd surely find some more efficient ways of achieving those goals than by non-vaccination and motorcycle-riding. And if people just want to be victims, there are far more efficient ways of doing that than by not wanting to own guns.)

Is the foreseeability of the risk materializing, in this case, higher than in the other cases? I don't think so. Really. The risk of being the victim of harm in a situation in which owning a gun would have prevented the harm? Slim. Really. But who knows?

Are the risks inherent in the alternative -- owning a gun -- more serious and foreseeable than in the other cases -- non-vaccination and non-motorcycle-riding? Surprise. Sure looks that way to me.

Risk-analysis does not depend only on the foreseeability of the risk materializing. It also involves an analysis of the foreseeability of the risks inherent in the alternatives, and an analysis of the seriousness of the consequences if the risk, or the risks of any of the alternatives, materialize.

.

Yes, folks, it can take a lot more words to demonstrate the crappiness of something that was said than it took to say it in the first place.

Y'all try it. I'll say "pool parlours are the devil's playground". If you want to demonstrate the crappiness of that statement, you'll need to be disproving the existence of the devil first ...

Of course, you could always just say "Are not!!" And so could I ... if I thought that there was a point to behaving like that.

.