Congresswoman ShotFollow

It doesn't take much of a stretch, but it doesn't make it correct. Inanimate objects are not inherently dangerous. A gun lying on a table is not dangerous. It has the potential to cause harm, and more so in that its owner was careless enough to leave it unprotected, if it is picked up and operated in an unsafe manner. The harm inflicted is not even necessarily a negative thing.

Yes, it can be operated safely and effectively. Then again, it can also be operated unsafely and not effectively. The object, when not being touched or used in any fashion is of course not dangerous. When it is being used, even mostly properly, however, it is dangerous. There's big potential for stuff to go seriously wrong. I'm not quite sure what's so hard to understand about this. Don't outlaw them, of course, but don't strut around saying they're not dangerous because if you lay them on the table and leave them alone they don't hurt anything unintentionally.

My dad smoked. Neither of my parents owned a gun. Dumbest argument ever.

If we take away guns, people will just go back to killing each other with knives and other pointy things. When someone wants to kill someone enough, they will find a way... guns just make it stupid easy (although apparently the idiot who tried to kill the congresswoman couldn't get it right).

Legislation isn't going to make guns any less dangerous. Canada has very strict gun laws by comparison to the US, but we still have guns here, people get killed with them all the time. The people who want guns for the purpose of causing harm will always get them, punishing people who want them for recreation, hunting, gun ranges etc. should not be "punished" because of the few who abuse the tools.

Arms control is a joke, just like the War on Drugs. It will become a money sink, and people will still aquire and use these items regardless if the government says you can or can not.

You said "Inanimate objects are not inherently dangerous". Now, if you meant that completely inert objects aren't dangerous, I suppose that's probably true although pretty meaningless.


Heh. Ok, then.

Guns, like nuclear weapons, are not dangerous.

Americans with guns, or nuclear weapons, are dangerous.



Thats the one us pot smokers use all the time. Oddly, it doesn't seem to work for us.

I disagree slightly. It's implying that guns are only around to shoot people. As someone who's been around when a rabid raccoon needed to be shot (I didn't have the heart to do it myself), I just feel the distinction needed to be made.

That is a fair point. How's this: With exceptions made for radioactive material, inanimate objects are not inherently dangerous.

Every tool is dangerous, though especially the ones designed to be weapons, but that isn't the argument being made.

The point is that as the lethality of the tool/weapon/however-you want-to-@#%^-foot-about-it increases in lethality, so do the number of injuries and deaths, with the demeanor/intent of the wielder being held constant.

If I'm a homicidal maniac then I pretty much cannot go on a killing spree with a Disney plushie. I could probably kill and injure a few people if I have access to a knife before being taken done. I could kill and injure a lot more people if I had a gun before I was taken down. I could kill and injure a great deal more with a large explosive before I was taken down.

Typically guns are the most lethal weapon the majority of people have access to and can use at a moments notice. If a jealous ex attacks me I have a better chance of surviving if she is forced to fight me bare handed than if she has a knife. I have a better chance of surviving if she is forced to use a knife over a pistol. I have a better chance of surviving if she is forced to use a pistol over an uzi. It's fairly simple.

Edited, Jan 10th 2011 4:13pm by Allegory

Too much effort without a gun.