Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[numinus]

So, you have nothing left except personal attacks from about the level of a three-year-old? Yep, about what I figured.

Please do not ever breed under any circumstances.

I just refuted your self-defense nonsense, fyi.

Any law-enforcement personnel would point out that among the weapons available in the market today, the gun is the most ill-suited for self-defense, especially for rape.

It requires a lot of technical proficiency to handle and use properly.

It is next to useless in close-quarter combat. Its nature is more apt for attack than defense.

It acts with deadly force, ALWAYS. Once fired, the user has absolutely no control over the bullet's trajectory.

And last, but not least -- its availability to the general public has ABSOLUTELY NO VERIFIABLE STATISTICAL CORRELATION WITH CRIME DETERENCE. In fact, a good number of crimes wouldn't have been possible if guns were simply unavailable to the general public. Any cop would tell you this.

These are simple and very direct reasons for not allowing guns to a private citizen -- something that would never occur to a redneck cowboy, especially one whose brain functions have simply atrophied through years of neglect.

 

[numinus]

I dont shoot at human shaped targets, and your suggestion that I do is false and ignorant. For the far majority it is a simple bullseye with scoring rings. The ones who generally shoot at human shaped targets are the police and military forces. The only ones who by your suggestion should have guns.
Am I the only one who thinks that letting only the people who regularly practice on human targets have guns is generally unwise?

Your mind operates on a hopelessly meandering logic.

The ability to use a gun for PROTECTION, for one's self or others, requires a proficiency that takes years of rigid training -- the kind of training available to law enforcement personnel. The very nature of a gun's use requires very strict adherence to rules of engagement -- something that applies only to law enforcement and military personnel.

Btw, your dishonesty is plain. Do you use your gun to feed your family or shoot at paper targets with cross-hairs and scoring rings, hmmm? I don't know why anyone would expect an honest answer from you, but just the same, the question needed to be asked.

 

[numinus]

The suggestion that I am being at all dishonest is quite ignorant on your part. There is no agriculture where I live. The nearest farm is a 375mile airplane trip away. I need a gun to feed my family, YES. I dont have the option of calling pizza hut.

If food is not readily available where you live, then it follows that a permanent law-enforcement in your vicinity would be unnecessary. Hence, your question would be irrelevant to your unique situation.

Again your notion that guns are only designed to shoot humans is a completely ignorant argument and you obviously have little concept about how a gun works, the different types and thier purposes.

I have more knowledge of guns than you would realize. My work takes me to places where only bandits and rebels would go. From experience, the false notion of protection from carrying a gun is amply demonstrated there.

People with guns have a very large distrust and a disproportionately small tolerance for other people with guns.

I do not even have a gun in my own home. My wife would have none of that. I don't even know if any gun is absolutely child-proof. If it were, then a hs classmate of mine would still be alive today and his best friend, the one who accidentally killed him while handling a firearm, wouldn't be carrying all that guilt up to now.

Thank you for proving my point. Which I will remind you that I explained what the mechanical design of guns do. Much the same as a hammer is designed to pound nails, it is the responsibility of the user of its actual use. By your argument here we shouldnt have access to any of the items you mentioned because someone could use them beyond thier intended purpose. No more pencil or pens in society either, because although they are designed to write with, someone could jab it into another human.
Also, you need not mention anything about bashing my ignorant skull in with any object. It is quite unbecoming. Until you can say something like that to ones face it is pointless. I doubt you would have the guts to do so anyways, and if you did, it wouldnt show so much courage as it would a lack of brains.

You have proven nothing.

A user has absolutely no control of a bullet's trajectory after it is fired. And when a weapon's effectivity is judged by the degree of control by its wielder, especially when 'self-defense' is the operative word, the gun is the MOST INEFFECTIVE.

That is plain facts and logic for you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I read your posts on this thread, Nums, and I gotta give you recognition for two things: one is that you are incessant--I don't know if that's good or not though, and two is that you know less about more things than almost anybody I've ever seen post on this site.

 

[Pidgey]

I read your posts on this thread, Nums, and I gotta give you recognition for two things: one is that you are incessant--I don't know if that's good or not though, and two is that you know less about more things than almost anybody I've ever seen post on this site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinus

Pidgey

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinus

Pidgey

That is a terrible insult to Whoopi Goldberg!

 

[Pidgey]

That is a terrible insult to Whoopi Goldberg!

Whoops!

Pidgey

 

[Jarlaxle]

I just refuted your self-defense nonsense, fyi.

Only in the dark, fetid depth of your "mind".

Any law-enforcement personnel would point out that among the weapons available in the market today, the gun is the most ill-suited for self-defense, especially for rape.

Horse manure.

It requires a lot of technical proficiency to handle and use properly.

Certainly...one reason my uncle has fired over 250,000 rounds (that's not a typo) in his life.

It is next to useless in close-quarter combat. Its nature is more apt for attack than defense.

Which is why it should be used to stop an attacker BEFORE he gets to "close quarters".

It acts with deadly force, ALWAYS. Once fired, the user has absolutely no control over the bullet's trajectory.

OK...is there actually a point to this?

And last, but not least -- its availability to the general public has ABSOLUTELY NO VERIFIABLE STATISTICAL CORRELATION WITH CRIME DETERENCE. In fact, a good number of crimes wouldn't have been possible if guns were simply unavailable to the general public. Any cop would tell you this.

Absolutely correct! Gun prohibition has absolutely no correlation with reducing crime! Thank you for making my point! Case in point: Washington DC, where guns are essentially banned, is a war zone.

These are simple and very direct reasons for not allowing guns to a private citizen -- something that would never occur to a redneck cowboy, especially one whose brain functions have simply atrophied through years of neglect.

Yet another personal attack (again, at about the level of a three-year-old) from numbnuts, more blindly flailing away in the dark, hoping to stumble on something intelligent.

PS--the best shots in the country are not cops.

 

[Bunz]

Btw, your dishonesty is plain. Do you use your gun to feed your family or shoot at paper targets with cross-hairs and scoring rings, hmmm? I don't know why anyone would expect an honest answer from you, but just the same, the question needed to be asked.

Well like any responsible hunter, I go out and make sure my guns work properly before attempting to hunt with them. It wouldnt be wise for someone to go out with a scoped rifle without any idea where the sighting point is. But then again, having knowledge about guns should have taught you that long ago.

 

[Bunz]

Numinus,

If food is not readily available where you live, then it follows that a permanent law-enforcement in your vicinity would be unnecessary. Hence, your question would be irrelevant to your unique situation.

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. I live in western Alaska, go to wiki and look up the Bush Alaska article and it might give you some insight. As for permanent law enforcement, in my village we do have law enforcement. There are others nearby who have none. So if a murder were to happen then the Alaska State Troopers would have to fly out to investigate at the next opportunity considering weather.

I have more knowledge of guns than you would realize. My work takes me to places where only bandits and rebels would go. From experience, the false notion of protection from carrying a gun is amply demonstrated there.

People with guns have a very large distrust and a disproportionately small tolerance for other people with guns.

I do not even have a gun in my own home. My wife would have none of that. I don't even know if any gun is absolutely child-proof. If it were, then a hs classmate of mine would still be alive today and his best friend, the one who accidentally killed him while handling a firearm, wouldn't be carrying all that guilt up to now.

Firstly, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. But if someone in high school accidently shoots thier friend, it says a few things to me.
A, that person and thier parents should be held liable for the actions of someone with a gun in thier hands.
B. Of course no gun is idiot proof, I dont think anyone would disagree. But again, it is the responsibility of the person in possession to keep the barrel in a safe direction at all times.
C. I hope your friend does carry guilt with him and takes the time to teach kids about the very simple safety rules of being around firearms. He took the life of someone through his own ignorant and negligent actions.

A user has absolutely no control of a bullet's trajectory after it is fired. And when a weapon's effectivity is judged by the degree of control by its wielder, especially when 'self-defense' is the operative word, the gun is the MOST INEFFECTIVE.

Again, it is the responsibility of the user to ensure the business end of a gun is pointed in a safe direction with a proper backstop. Anyone who shoots rounds into the air or in a direction not known to be safe is an idiot and probably took gun lessons from you.

 

[numinus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinus

Pidgey

I had this in mind but I suppose one cannot blame you entirely if you cannot comprehend anything more substantive than comicbooks.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=numinous

Numinous is a Latin term coined by German theologian Rudolf Otto to describe that which is wholly other. The numinous is the mysterium tremendum et fascinans that leads in different cases to belief in deities, the supernatural, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent.
The word was used by Otto in his book Das Heilige (1917; translated as The Idea of the Holy, 1923). Etymologically, it comes from the Latin word numen, which originally and literally meant "nodding", but was associated with meanings of "command" or "divine majesty". Otto formed the word numinous from numen in a manner analogous to the derivation of ominous from omen.

Numinous was an important concept in the writings of Carl Jung and C. S. Lewis. The notion of the numinous and the wholly other were central to the religious studies of Mircea Eliade. It was also used by Carl Sagan in his book Contact.

Carlos Castaneda deals with a related concept in his Don Juan Matus' books, which purport to describe his experiences among native American shamans, but whose factual basis now appears largely discredited. This is the 'nagual' which seems to correspond to an idea of something wholly other, or at least to something our neural net has not yet fit into a template or cookie-cutter 'recognition' (Casteneda's so-called 'tonal'). The term is also used in Jacques Derrida's book The Gift of Death in reference to his own idea of the other, and in conversation with Otto's ideas.

In order to clarify the term in layman's language it may be viewed as "the intense feeling of unknowingly knowing that there is something which cannot be seen." And this knowing can "befall" or overcome a person at any time and in any place - in a cathedral; next to a silent stream; on a lonely road; early in the morning or in the face of a beautiful sunset.

The idea is not necessarily a religious one: noted atheist Christopher Hitchens has discussed the importance of separating the numinous from the supernatural.

 

[numinus]

I read your posts on this thread, Nums, and I gotta give you recognition for two things: one is that you are incessant--I don't know if that's good or not though, and two is that you know less about more things than almost anybody I've ever seen post on this site.

Coming from someone as ignorant and bigotted as you, you cannot begin to fathom how comforting that sounds.

 

[numinus]

Only in the dark, fetid depth of your "mind".

You're the one infatuated with guns and I'm the one with a 'dark, fetid' mind? What absolute nonsense.

Horse manure.

And you would know about horse manure, eh.

HEE-HAW!

Certainly...one reason my uncle has fired over 250,000 rounds (that's not a typo) in his life.

Hooliganism runs in your family, it seems.

Which is why it should be used to stop an attacker BEFORE he gets to "close quarters".

"Excuse me, ma'm but i'm going to rape you in a few minutes."

HEE-HAW!

OK...is there actually a point to this?

There is but it is beyond your puny capabilities, I'm afraid.

A weapon's effectivity, especially for self-defense, depends on DEGREES OF CONTROL. Otherwise, how can one adhere to the principle of NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE, hmmm?

Duh?

Absolutely correct! Gun prohibition has absolutely no correlation with reducing crime! Thank you for making my point! Case in point: Washington DC, where guns are essentially banned, is a war zone.

I didn't say 'prohibition', did I?

HEE-HAW!

Yet another personal attack (again, at about the level of a three-year-old) from numbnuts, more blindly flailing away in the dark, hoping to stumble on something intelligent.

I do not propose to insult you other than tell you what you actually are.

PS--the best shots in the country are not cops.

Not when the target shoots back.

 

[numinus]

Well like any responsible hunter, I go out and make sure my guns work properly before attempting to hunt with them. It wouldnt be wise for someone to go out with a scoped rifle without any idea where the sighting point is. But then again, having knowledge about guns should have taught you that long ago.

What patent dishonesty!

And you just happen to callibrate your gun's scope on targets with SCORING RINGS? You're lies have been obvious since you said you hunt to feed your family. There is no sense in pretending that your lies would amount to anything.

 

[PLC1]

What patent dishonesty!

And you just happen to callibrate your gun's scope on targets with SCORING RINGS? You're lies have been obvious since you said you hunt to feed your family. There is no sense in pretending that your lies would amount to anything.

You might want to check out Bunz's location before making any such sweeping commentary.
You know, before you go saying someone else is lying or is ignorant, or whatever, try doing a search or two to update your own information.