Discussion I buy a spade to dig a hole ,a broom to sweep a floor ...

Having shot well over 1,000 rounds, I can tell you that your argument also amuses me, as by your reasoning, I would have killed 1000 people. Hahaha

Even for protection, the intended use is just that, protection.

probinson said:

This argument always amuses me.

Shovels have all kinds of legitimate, intended uses. Digging holes, digging up stubborn roots in your yard, planting things, digging a foundation for a new structure... and the list goes on. It is the misuse of a shovel that can cause it to become a lethal weapon. This is true of anything. Heck, a person with the proper ninja training could kill you with a paper clip if they wanted to.

OTOH, when used properly, a gun is a lethal weapon. There is no misuse required. Just use it just as it was intended; load it, pull the trigger, bam, life ending capability just as it was intended.

Shovels are not intended to be lethal weapons. Nor are paper clips, or cars, or lawn mowers, or steak knives, or any other myriad of things that you might try to equate to guns because someone, somewhere once misused the item in question a lethal manner. "A person suffocated another person with a plastic bag! Should we outlaw all plastic bags?" These are silly arguments that fall apart with only a cursory examination.

You can attempt to pretty it up all you like by saying that the gun's purpose is to act as a deterrent, but the only reason that deterrent exists is because of a fear of the potential life ending capability of that gun. IOW, Unless you're MacGyver and using the gun as an impromptu wrench to prevent a nuclear reactor from melting down, the intended purpose of a gun is to kill.

The bottom line is, you're attempting to draw some correlation between the misuse of an everyday item and that of the intended use of a gun. But no such correlation exists.

Click to expand...

So did you go to the prayer meeting?

Alithis said:

I buy a spade to dig a hole ,a broom to sweep a floor .

i desire to dig a hole outside ,perhaps turn over a Garden etc ,, so i buy a spade , perhaps a shovel .the thing i buy has a purpose and i go out and i purchase it (if i can ) for that purpose that i might do with it what it is intended for ..

I buy a mop to clean my floor .. my floor is dirty and i had no mop and i desired to clean it so i purchase a mop .. i buy the mop for the task it is designed for .

i go and attend a prayer meeting that i might pray with others ..
it is the honest truth that we do what we love the most and what we desire in our hearts sooner or later manifests itself .those who desire to love the lord Jesus seek to learn more of him , they endeavor to abide in him more and more ,they build upon the foundation he has laid in us by his grace .those whose hearts are filled with a desire to walk in the Holy Spirit seek the things of the Spirit and when we love the flesh we seek the things of the flesh -we al know that is true. the lord Jesus made it very clear

in these simple things the intent of my heart is displayed .. i did not by the mop to dig a hole and if i said i did i would not be honest about it .
i did not buy the spade to clean the floor .. with each of these purchases i had a task i desired to preform ...

so why buy a hand gun ?-honestly

WSS

Click to expand...

At my first job, I had a co-worker that was a quotation Engineer. His job was to look at the financial numbers and see if it made sense for us to take on any given job. Everyone had their opinions on why we should or shouldn't take on a new job, and everyone could justify it with the numbers. He used to tell me all the time, "Numbers don't lie. Liars use numbers." And it's absolutely true.

Google "gun rights". You'll find tons of statistics supporting the idea that gun ownership makes us safer. Google "gun control". You'll find tons of statistics supporting the idea that gun ownership is harmful. Both sides can support their arguments with valid statistics, but neither side is being completely honest.

This article does a decent job of sifting through the rhetoric and getting to actual statistical facts and data, and if nothing else points out how anyone who suggests all you have to do is look at stats to prove their point is being more than just a little disingenuous about the topic. There is no agreement whatsoever on this topic between the two viewpoints and both sides can make compelling arguments backed up by statistical data.

I often get classified as "anti-gun", but I'm not. I support people's right to bear arms. But the reason I get classified as such is because I don't just dutifully repeat whatever "facts" the gun lobby spews out.

The whole, more people are killed by machetes each year than guns, was amusing to me, and quite obviously false. But it serves as a perfect demonstration of how statistics can be twisted beyond all recognition to "support" such an obviously false claim.

FBI statistics did indeed show in 2011, blunt objects (hammers, baseball bats, clubs, etc.) accounted for 496 homicide deaths while knives and cutting instruments (machetes, steak knives, etc.) accounted for 1,694 homicide deaths. Rifles accounted for only 323 homicide deaths. And voila! The claim, "More people are killed by machetes than guns!" is born. But not quite. The report also states that 6,220 homicide deaths were attributable to handguns in that same time period, and 8,583 homicide deaths were attributable to all firearms. The total of all homicide deaths in 2011 was 12,664, meaning that the weapon of choice for nearly 68% of all homicide deaths in 2011 was a firearm of some kind and not the ominous machete as was circulated around the Internet en masse. (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8)

Both the gun lobby and the gun control activists are full of "facts" like this that are, quite simply, dishonest.

Svt4Him said:

Even for protection, the intended use is just that, protection.

Click to expand...

How does a gun "protect" you? It is because that gun has the capability to end another person's life. Its intended purpose.

As to your other comment, I'll presume since you did not state directly that the 1,000+ rounds you have fired were at targets of some kind. But this isn't a discussion about target practice. It's a discussion about the intended purpose of a gun. I highly doubt that anyone talking about a gun as a device for protection or a deterrent of any kind means that they would only ever use that gun for target practice. Indeed, for a gun to be a deterrent, the person you are deterring needs to be convinced that you would use that gun to fire on them. Otherwise, there is nothing to deter them.

Simply Put said:

All you have to do is look at statistics. Actual murder rates per capita. Not just gun deaths, but murder in all forms.

The U.S. Had the highest gun ownership in the world. But where is America's murder rate? 4.7 per capita. There are more than 100 nations with higher murder rate than America does.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

So here in the 'wild west' where we have open carry. And in the U.S. With gun ownership higher than any other country on earth, we are not even in the top 100 nations with the highest murder rate per capita.

Exactly why is that? If what some are saying is accurate, why isn't our murder rate commensurate with gun ownership.

Click to expand...

probinson said:

How does a gun "protect" you? It is because that gun has the capability to end another person's life. Its intended purpose.

As to your other comment, I'll presume since you did not state directly that the 1,000+ rounds you have fired were at targets of some kind. But this isn't a discussion about target practice. It's a discussion about the intended purpose of a gun. I highly doubt that anyone talking about a gun as a device for protection or a deterrent of any kind means that they would only ever use that gun for target practice. FYI - in the 34 years of gun ownership I have used it four times for defense and countless of thousands of time for target practice and competition shooting, You do the math. Indeed, for a gun to be a deterrent, the person you are deterring needs to be convinced that you would use that gun to fire on them. Otherwise, there is nothing to deter them. The same can be said of anything that can be used as a weapon. Including a shovel or even a base ball bat.

My aunt owned a small store well into her 80's. She had below her counter a baseball bat. The intended purpose of the bat was for it to be a deterrent to someone who would want to do her harm. During an attempted robbery, she effectively used the bat as a deterrent and the intended robber left with a shattered arm and some bruising.

That bat had not say in what its intended purpose was going to be. I bring it up because you keep repeating that phrase intended purpose, like the gun itself determine how it is used.

Click to expand...

Evidently, others have a different intended purpose for guns than taking a life. The intended purpose comes from the user, not the piece of steel. The simple substantiated facts show the effectiveness of gun ownership.

USA gun ownership per capita - 90 per capita - highest in the world
USA Murder rate per capita - 4.7 per capita - not even in the top 100.

Statistic I quoted are not from some anti or pro cite, they are global statistics confirmed through a number of different sources. My comment about machetes didn't come from some convoluted number crunch as supposed, it comes from one of the greatest murder capital of the world - South Africa - where their weapon of choice is a blade.

dontcha just hate when real life doesn't uphold your belief system..

I wonder if I could get an honest answer to this question. Anyone is free to answer;

Why do you feel as though you have protection when you have a gun? Or more specifically, what is it about that gun that makes you feel like you have more protection than someone who does not have a gun?

These claims of per capita gun ownership and murder rate seem to originate with a commentary from Bill Whittle;
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/u...rship-not-even-top-100-countries-murder-rate/

This is another excellent example of making numbers and statistics say what you want them to say.

It is a true statement that the US has the highest gun ownership per capita in the world, and it is also a true statement that the per capita murder rate for the US is just outside of the top 100. Stop right there! That's headline-making, agenda bolstering information that must be proclaimed from the mountaintops!

However, it is also true that the US has the highest per capita rate of firearm related murders of all developed countries (Source). The goal posts have moved ever so subtly here. We've moved from talking about firearm related murders to talking about ALL murders, because that statistic is more palatable to the gun lobby's purpose.

Never mind the fact that nearly 68% of all homicides in the US are committed with a firearm. Look at Honduras! And Africa! And Sierra Leone! And all these other countries we could give a rat's patoot about until we can exploit their homicide data in a way to make the statistics appear favorable to our purpose.

The fact of the matter is, cherry picked data can be made to say whatever you would like it to say, and the gun lobby is probably better at that than any other group or organization. The "gun grabbers", as the gun lobby affectionately refers to them, is pretty good at twisting data also, which makes it nearly impossible to have a rational, objective discussion on this topic.

probinson said:

Why do you feel as though you have protection when you have a gun? Or more specifically, what is it about that gun that makes you feel like you have more protection than someone who does not have a gun?

Click to expand...

Honest reply:

I never really 'felt' like I had more or less protection because of weapons. I just new it was a good tool to deter someone wanting to do me or someone else harm. Simple logic and history will show that someone who is armed has a greater level of protection than an unarmed individual. That in and of itself is just logical.

You will also note that shootings typically occur in areas where they are gun free zones, like theaters, schools etc..

Simply Put said:

I never really 'felt' like I had more or less protection because of weapons. I just new it was a good tool to deter someone wanting to do me or someone else harm. Simple logic and history will show that someone who is armed has a greater level of protection than an unarmed individual. That in and of itself is just logical.

Click to expand...

How so?

Why do you think people are deterred from harming you if you have a gun?

probinson said:

These claims of per capita gun ownership and murder rate seem to originate with a commentary from Bill Whittle;

Click to expand...

Never heard of Bill Whittle and the stats are from wikipedia and a number of other sources that have no political stance.

Simple truth

You still have not addressed the fact that while the US has the highest precept of gun ownership in the world (90 per capita) the murder rate including gun (4.7 per capita) is not even in the top 100 nations. Both those wiki links, not some political hack. Statistics from both can in fact be substantiated with some simple google searches.

That's not making numbers say anything but the truth.

So I'll ask this way - why is the country with the highest per capita of gun ownership in the world, have such a low murder per capita?

Can I get an honest answer to that?

probinson said:

How so?

Why do you think people are deterred from harming you if you have a gun?

Click to expand...

For the very self same reason if I held a knife, bat, shovel, chain, hammer, screwdriver as a weapon.

They don't want to get hurt.

I answered your questions honestly, will you be doing so with mine?

Simply Put said:

Never heard of Bill Whittle and the stats are from wikipedia and a number of other sources that have no political stance.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Stats have no political stance. They never do.

Simply Put said:

Simple truth

Click to expand...

Disagreed. Stats almost NEVER are "simple truth". They are almost ALWAYS presented in a way that favors the speaker's purpose or agenda.

Simply Put said:

You still have not addressed the fact that while the US has the highest precept of gun ownership in the world (90 per capita) the murder rate including gun (4.7 per capita) is not even in the top 100 nations. Both those wiki links, not some political hack. Statistics from both can in fact be substantiated with some simple google searches.

Click to expand...

I'm not disputing these stats. They are accurate. However I believe the message you are trying to present with them is quite misleading.

Simply Put said:

That's not making numbers say anything but the truth.

So I'll ask this way - why is the country with the highest per capita of gun ownership in the world, have such a low murder per capita?

Can I get an honest answer to that?

Click to expand...

Look at the list. The United States is listed at #111 on the list. Then there are other countries that no one has ever heard of (Saint Kitts and Nevis?) that break the list at #10 with a whopping 18 TOTAL murders.

Percentages and per capita rates have long been used to speak factually while obfuscating the truth. Again, consider that Honduras earns the top spot on the list. But the population of Honduras is around 8 million, vs. the population of around 318 million in the US. Obviously, any per capita rate will be much higher in a country whose population is roughly 2% of that of the US.

It's like when you walk into a store and there's a sale. 50% off all merchandise $2 or less! At best you stand to save $1. Compare that to a sale offering 50% off all merchandise $100 or less. Now you stand to save up to $50, but you're still getting 50% off. Both stores can factually claim a 50% off sale, but most shoppers will see through the facade of 50% of $2 sale.

Then consider Honduras is in Central America, and the cultural differences from the US;


Suddenly it becomes clear that Honduras is a hotbed for crime because of human rights abuse, a problem that is FAR more prevalent there than in the US. Perhaps this is why the murder rate is higher, and it has nothing at all to do with gun ownership.

The point is, there are numerous variables that result in crime rates being higher. Correlation does not equate to causation. I mean, we could just as easily pick any other statistic where Honduras is higher than the US and try to say that is why the murder rate is higher there.

However, when we talk about firearms-related murder, you get very different statistics. Homicide in the US is carried out almost 68% of the time with a firearm, a stat the US leads the world in developed countries. Gun rights advocates don't want you to know that. "But you can kill someone with a knife!" Yes, you can. And people do. But the stats clearly show that the weapon of choice for the vast majority of homicides in the US is indisputably a firearm.

In any event, the gun lobby thinks they have found a smoking gun (pun intended) with this per capita rate and being #111 on the list (which, by the way is still in the top 50% of the countries list. Odd how we switch from "per capita" speak to actual numbers to make things seem better than they are...), but the only ones buying it are those who already believe it's true.

Simply Put said:

For the very self same reason if I held a knife, bat, shovel, chain, hammer, screwdriver as a weapon.

They don't want to get hurt.

Click to expand...

Well at least we agree the intended purpose of a gun is to hurt people.

Simply Put said:

The second gun I purchased was 1911

Click to expand...

Lol I read: was in 1911

Messy said:

Lol I read: was in 1911

Click to expand...

No, this is a Colt 1911 ACP

probinson said:

Well at least we agree the intended purpose of a gun is to hurt people.

Click to expand...

We don't agree - I've stated it numerous times. Some people use the gun as an intended purpose to hunt, some people use a gun as an intended purpose to shoot targets or compete on teams. Some people use the gun as an intended purpose to keep from being a victim. Some people use the gun to go and rob and commit murder (thieves and murderers).

Sorry you missed the number of times I posted this. Hopefully you will not miss this one.

And you can spin and twist numbers all you want. The murder rate per capita in the US is 4.7 that includes guns, knives, bombs, baseball bats and anything that results in death. ergo, the murder rate for guns per capita is something below 4.7.

That is established and undeniable. And yet, the USA has the highest rate per capita of gun ownership 90.0. We rate the highest in the world for gun ownership, yet there are 111 of 218 other countries with lower gun owner rates than us, that have higher murder rates. I'm not sure why anyone cannot see that?

You can't use sheer numbers because different countries have different levels of population. A city of 8 million like NYC will have very different statistics than an entire country that has 4 million people. You don't really need me to explain that do you?

Simply Put said:

We don't agree - I've stated it numerous times. Some people use the gun as an intended purpose to hunt, some people use a gun as an intended purpose to shoot targets or compete on teams. Some people use the gun as an intended purpose to keep from being a victim. Some people use the gun to go and rob and commit murder (thieves and murderers).

Click to expand...

But you just said that people feel protected (which is what we're talking about here) because other people don't want to get hurt. Is there some other reason that people feel protected while they're carrying a gun?

Simply Put said:

And you can spin and twist numbers all you want.

Click to expand...

So can you.

Simply Put said:

The murder rate per capita in the US is 4.7 that includes guns, knives, bombs, baseball bats and anything that results in death. ergo, the murder rate for guns per capita is something below 4.7.

Click to expand...

Got it. Per capita is the preferred method of measurement.

Simply Put said:

That is established and undeniable. And yet, the USA has the highest rate per capita of gun ownership 90.0. We rate the highest in the world for gun ownership, yet there are 111 of 218 other countries with lower gun owner rates than us, that have higher murder rates.

Click to expand...

And once again, we've switched from "per capita" measurements to actual numbers. Why do you choose to state that the US is not in the top 100 instead of stating that the US is in the top 50% of nations with the highest per capita murder rate? Both are true, but you're using per capita figures until it sounds better to use actual numbers.

Simply Put said:

I'm not sure why anyone cannot see that?

Click to expand...

Because there's nothing there to "see". You're trying to draw causation from an alleged correlation that simply does not exist. No one but you has even suggested that guns are the only way people can be murdered.

Simply Put said:

You can't use sheer numbers because different countries have different levels of population. A city of 8 million like NYC will have very different statistics than an entire country that has 4 million people.

Click to expand...

True. But different sample sets carry with them different weights. If I took a poll of 5 people and all 5 people said Coke was better than Pepsi, could I accurately state that 100% of people prefer Coke over Pepsi? Of course not. Smaller sample sizes simply don't have the same weighting or significance as larger sample sets. So while you are correct that per capita is the way to compare things on a level playing field, it also obscures the real numbers and the weighting of each category. As a result, the US is shown as having a lower murder rate than a country with a population of just over 54,000.

Meanwhile, 68% of all people who commit homicide use a firearm as their weapon of choice in the US. That's a per capita rate of more than any other developed nation in the world, and a factual statistic you will never hear cited by the gun lobby.