• Starbucks Seeks to Keep Guns Out of Its Coffee Shops
    205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235317]The only reason to have a gun is the intent to kill.[/QUOTE] Nah.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42235333]Oh come on, a car can and has been used as a murder weapon time and time again. If someone driving wants to kill you as you walk on the sidewalk, they easily can. The intention of the device is irrelevant. It's use is what matters.[/QUOTE] Anything can kill you, but most things aren't designed to kill you and are rarely used as such. As I said, cars are designed so you hit them in such a way that you survive. Guns are intended to kill, so I don't see what you're getting at.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;42235337]Target shooting, shooting clays, collecting, etc.[/QUOTE] Competitive shooting is another large one. Vast majority of countries allow gun ownership for this purpose. Many have Olympic teams.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;42235365]Nah.[/QUOTE] Talking about open carry here.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235366]Anything can kill you, but most things aren't designed to kill you and are rarely used as such. As I said, cars are designed so you hit them in such a way that you survive. Guns are intended to kill, so I don't see what you're getting at.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;42235333]The intention of the device is irrelevant. It's use is what matters.[/QUOTE] You completely ignored what he said. [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235372]Talking about open carry here.[/QUOTE] Backpedaling?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235366]Anything can kill you, but most things aren't designed to kill you and are rarely used as such. As I said, cars are designed so you hit them in such a way that you survive. Guns are intended to kill, so I don't see what you're getting at.[/QUOTE] It does not matter what the intention of an inanimate object is. What matters is the intention of the person utilizing said object.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;42235393]It does not matter what the intention of an inanimate object is. What matters is the intention of the person utilizing said object.[/QUOTE] The design implies the intent to use. If someone walks around with a spoon you don't expect them to fucking spoon people to death.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235372]Talking about open carry here.[/QUOTE] Still a nah.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;42235417]Still a nah.[/QUOTE] Why would someone open carry? To look cool? A fashion statement? [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;42235387] Backpedaling?[/QUOTE] Maybe a little. In my mind I was talking about open carries I just didn't type it.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235413]The design implies the intent to use. If someone walks around with a spoon you don't expect them to fucking spoon people to death.[/QUOTE] Are you purposefully ignoring half of what anyone who contradicts you says? [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235425]Why would someone open carry? To look cool? A fashion statement? [/QUOTE] Yes. What, did you really expect a different response?
[QUOTE=The golden;42235442]It was pretty obvious that open carry is what he was talking about since that is what the ongoing discussion was about. A slight misunderstanding but not backpedaling.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235317]Car isn't intended to kill people, Infact they're designed not to. Guns are the opposite - The only reason to have a gun and open carry is the intent to kill.[/QUOTE] That is the full statement, he was comparing owning a gun to owning a car, and their intended designs. Nothing indicating open carry in that whole statement.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235425]Why would someone open carry? To look cool? A fashion statement?[/QUOTE] The reasons could be endless. Various states forbid concealed carry under certain conditions but allow open carry, and so on. Plus as others already said, it acts as a deterrent. Honestly, I'd feel more comfortable around someone carrying in the open with a proper holster than a dude with a suspicious bulge in his pocket, or something.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235413]The design implies the intent to use. If someone walks around with a spoon you don't expect them to fucking spoon people to death.[/QUOTE] You are exactly right. I have now idea what that person is going to do. I can ASSUME he is going to be eating because he has a spoon, and that is what they are designed for. Is that what he will do? I have no idea. He could just as likely be planning to spoon someone to death. I'm not going to sit and judge a person because he is carrying an inanimate object, regardless of what it's designed for.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235413]The design implies the intent to use. If someone walks around with a spoon you don't expect them to fucking spoon people to death.[/QUOTE] Exactly, a gun can also be intended to protect. A car is intended to drive, but that doesn't mean it is intended to drive everywhere. So you shouldn't be afraid of a car if you are in a place it isn't intended to drive. A gun is intended to kill, but that doesn't mean it is intended to kill everyone. So you shouldn't be afraid of a gun if you aren't doing anything that it isn't intended to stop by killing.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42234928]Don't be afraid of a gun, be afraid of a shooter.[/QUOTE] It's human nature to be at-least be wary of people you don't know. So a person you don't know who openly carries a gun [B]IS [/B]scary shit.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42235598]It's human nature to be at-least be wary of people you don't know. So a person you don't know who openly carries a gun [B]IS [/B]scary shit.[/QUOTE] All depends on how many you have seen, it is better to say we fear the unknown. I've seen a huge number, so it doesn't really even phase me.
So far people are just spouting their opinion about how they are afraid of legal gun owners. Can I get some evidence of why that makes sense? So far I'm the only one who's posted any sort of evidence and it clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, that legally having a gun makes one safer.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42235598]It's human nature to be at-least be wary of people you don't know. So a person you don't know who openly carries a gun [B]IS [/B]scary shit.[/QUOTE] Police officers carry them on their hips, but not all cops are scary. What's your point?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42235643]Police officers carry them on their hips, but not all cops are scary. What's your point?[/QUOTE] oh god. please don't tell me you think this is a legitimate argument.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235665]oh god. please don't tell me you think this is a legitimate argument.[/QUOTE] The point is that guns aren't scary, the people holding them are scary. Please show proof that you have good reason to be afraid of a legal gun owner with open carry.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42235665]oh god. please don't tell me you think this is a legitimate argument.[/QUOTE] He said people who open carry that you don't know are scary. Cops do this every day. Whats your point?
guns are not a tool to protect at the end of the day they are a device to fire metal slugs at sonic speeds towards a living thing excuse me if i get a bit uneasy when i go to get my coffee and a man i have no idea of his mental state has a gun slung over his back [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] before you call "but police ogm" on my argument the act of having a badge implies that you've had at least a checkup done
[QUOTE=sgman91;42235675]The point is that guns aren't scary, the people holding them are scary. Please show proof that you have good reason to be afraid of a legal gun owner with open carry.[/QUOTE] Because it's human nature to be afraid of the unknown. However I think I misunderstood his argument. I thought he was arguing that you have good reason to be afraid of the police.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42235710]guns are not a tool to protect at the end of the day they are a device to fire metal slugs at sonic speeds towards a living thing excuse me if i get a bit uneasy when i go to get my coffee and a man i have no idea of his mental state has a gun slung over his back[/QUOTE] Here I'll quote myself where I gave actual, real, proof instead of useless opinions: [QUOTE]"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which the gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.' - [URL]http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=18319&page=16[/URL] (CDC study ordered by Obama)[/QUOTE] Sounds like protection to me.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42235723]Here I'll quote myself where I gave actual, real, proof instead of useless opinions: Sounds like protection to me.[/QUOTE] they're a tool to protect in the same way that a car is a tool to get you to the grocery store that's one use, but a car does more than getting you to the grocery store so you don't call it a tool to get to the grocery store you call it driving ".e., incidents in which the gun was "used" by the crime victim in the [B]sense of attacking[/B] or [B]threatening[/B] an offender)"
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42235776]they're a tool to protect in the same way that a car is a tool to get you to the grocery store that's one use, but a car does more than getting you to the grocery store so you don't call it a tool to get to the grocery store you call it driving ".e., incidents in which the gun was "used" by the crime victim in the [B]sense of attacking[/B] or [B]threatening[/B] an offender)"[/QUOTE] There is moral and immoral violence. Violence that is reactive in order to stop an attacker is perfectly moral.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42235200][t]http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/naTSklJmB2o/maxresdefault.jpg[/t] Not mine, but yeah.[/QUOTE] that's fucking stupid
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;42235810]that's fucking stupid[/QUOTE] You're fucking stupid! /sarcasm I feel dirty needlessly calling people names, even in a sarcastic nature. I honestly don't understand people who feel like that's a legitimate way to refer to people who they don't know at all and have no reason to believe they've done anything wrong.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42235776]they're a tool to protect in the same way that a car is a tool to get you to the grocery store that's one use, but a car does more than getting you to the grocery store so you don't call it a tool to get to the grocery store you call it driving ".e., incidents in which the gun was "used" by the crime victim in the [B]sense of attacking[/B] or [B]threatening[/B] an offender)"[/QUOTE] And guns are multipurpose tools too. Guns aren't called "person killers", they're called guns. discharging one isn't always murder, so doing so at a range isn't murder its called [I]shooting.[/I]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42235833]And guns are multipurpose tools too. Guns aren't called "person killers", they're called guns. discharging one isn't always murder, so doing so at a range isn't murder its called [I]shooting.[/I][/QUOTE] cars weren't expressly designed to kill persons more efficiently
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.