Daily Show

[Crapshoot]

Roffle. Did anyone see Stewart point out the hypocrisy in the culture of life bs that some idiot senator was talking about ("The Pope stands for the Culture of Life, as do I") - however, he was then asked about the death penalty, and then decided that " I didn't come on the show to talk about that". What a bunch of hypocritical asswipes.

[Stanmarsh100]

Hypocritical. No.
Incongruent. Yes.
IMHO

My old roommate once explained, while stuttering throughout, said "It's different. We can decide to put somebody to death because they were an adult, whereas a fetus cannot decide. Plus, it is a deterrent to other people looking to commit murder."

I pointed out that there was a mountain of studies that find no evidence that the death penalty deters from others to kill. If it is a culture of live, how does ending one promote life? Practically speaking, it costs more to have a prisioner on death row, so if you were to repeal the death penalty, then it seems like you could use the extra money to actually promote life, such as helping the poorest folks in the US with their life-threatening illnesses to futher life.

He said "I don't care, they deserve it."

So, Crapshoot, IMHO, you cannot use logic to sway the illogical. It seems to be a purely emotional view. Babies don't deserve it. The poor and criminals do deserve it.

[Crapshoot]

To be fair, I believe that to be the best counter-arguement to the death penalty arguement is the choice aspect. That being said, places like Texas are putting mentally retarded people to death- which is beyond idiotic. My beef isnt so much with the arguement as with the idiot who decides talking up his political point is okay, but when questioned on it, attempts to run away. Have the courage of your convictions.

[Crunky]

Do we really need to keep retarded murderers alive, though?

[Greyroofoo]

My main beef against the death penalty is the cost and that it's irreversible

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

My main beef against the death penalty is the cost and that it's irreversible

So you have two beefs?

Beef - now there's a fun word to say. Beef.

Beef beef beef beef beef beef beef beef beef beef beef.

That was good.

[sooner333]

I want to know if more death penalty cases or more life in prison for murder cases get overturned. I mean, you would think that all of the activists would work more for death penalty cases to get them overturned...which makes me wonder if there shouldnt' be more attention on the life in prison people.

[Qwikshot]

Don't care about the Death Penalty, just don't think about taking my guns away from me.


NOTE: The above post is sarcasm, pure sarcasm.

[randal7]

Originally Posted by Stanmarsh100

there was a mountain of studies that find no evidence that the death penalty deters from others to kill.

It really cuts down on the repeat offenders, though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The "culture of life" is a fucking joke. They seem to only be interested in the "life" of zygotes/embryos and vegetables. That's about it. The rest of us? Well, we can pretty much go to hell. Let's see...

Death Penalty? Check.
Firearms for all (That's right. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.)? Check.
Initiation of pre-emptive wars on that lead to the DEATH of thousands based on flimsy evidence? Check.
Not all that worried about massacares going on around the world (see: the Sudan)? Check.

This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. Democrats have dropped bombs (Kosovo) on folks and have stood by while horrific massacares have gone on (Rawanda). But if certain politicians are going to put themselves out there as being leaders of a "Culture of Life" movement, they have a pretty narrow view of what "life" is worth being protected or whatever the hell their culture is alleged to support.

[Radii]

I don't think you really have to give a shit about the content to view it as funny and somewhat hypocritical. The picture the daily show was painting was of politicians getting face time to essentially talk about how their views were similar to the pope's, but then when asked for their thoughts about something where they disagreed, they immediately became somber and said "this isn't really the time to talk about that" It doesn't matter what the topic was, politicians are full of shit, and the daily show is there to point it out in a humorous way.

[jeff061]

I love the daily show, they need to get back to their roots a bit though. I'm sick of all the assholes coming on pushing books. Am I the only one who does not care/trust what someone thinks if they only are trying to make a buck with their ideas? He is quickly losing the "We do comedy, not News" defense.

Still love the show though .

[oliegirl]

I am not allowed to watch The Daily Show...radii tivo's it, but I am "annoying" when I watch it b/c I don't pay enough attention and talk over it...so I am banned from watching

Actually, I am not too upset about it, I like Jon Stewart for his comedy but that is about it...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The "culture of life" is a fucking joke. They seem to only be interested in the "life" of zygotes/embryos and vegetables. That's about it. The rest of us? Well, we can pretty much go to hell. Let's see...

Exactly. While they're spending endless time and money protecting the life of zygotes, embryos and people in persistent vegetative states who wanted to die anyways, they do this:

The 1,130 soup kitchen guests, as they're respectfully called, began gathering outside the church doors an hour early, curling around the corner in a long line to await a free main meal - their safety-net highlight in another day of being down and out, part of the working poor, or surviving somewhere in between.

The repast, at 2,500 calories a serving, steamed aromatically: chicken à la king, rice, buttered spinach, peaches. A staff member in the nave of the building, the Church of the Holy Apostles, cued dozens of volunteer helpers: "Ladies and gentlemen, it's showtime. Thanks be to God." And from Ninth Avenue in Manhattan, the diners flowed in.

The sight of masses of Americans gratefully chowing down on free food is indeed a show, an amazingly discreet one that is classified not as outright hunger but as "food insecurity" by government specialists who are busy measuring the growing lines at soup kitchens and food pantries across the nation. There were 25.5 million supplicants regularly lining up in 2002; they were joined by 1.1 million more the next year. And even more arrive as unemployment and other government programs run out.

Much as the diners at Holy Apostles peered ahead to see what was being dished up at the steam tables, soup kitchen administrators across the country are currently eying governments' trilevel budget season and wincing at all the politicians' economizing vows. They know that "budget tightening" eventually means longer lines outside their doors.

"It's a desperate thing," said the Rev. Bill Greenlaw, director of the Holy Apostles charity, one of the largest among 1,298 kitchens and pantries regularly helping more than one million residents in New York City. "Every level of government seems to have the same mantra, that these programs are vulnerable.

"We're bracing that all three levels of government are coming down at the same time."

Most immediately, food charities are pleading against further cuts in the federal emergency food and shelter program, which directly fights hunger. Last year, 48 soup kitchens closed in the city as supplies were exhausted, and hundreds of others reported to be making do by cutting back on daily portions.

Beyond that, however, administrators know that the myriad of severe program cuts looming in Washington - for everything from low-income wage supplements to health care spending for poor people - can only lead to further cuts down the revenue food chain in statehouses and city halls and, finally, longer lines of people silently begging for food.

The budget debate in the Republican-run Capitol presents a Hobson's choice between the House's five-year, $30 billion-plus in program cuts for the poor and the Senate's $2.8 billion in cuts - one-tenth the pain, but focused most heavily on nutrition programs. The compromise cuts are likely to lean toward the House, levying more than their fair budget share on the poor, even as President Bush and the G.O.P. leaders argue that still more upper-bracket tax cuts are somehow justifiable.

So Father Greenlaw can only turn to pleading for even more charity from the city's better-off residents.

According to a survey by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, seven out of 10 of the city's pantries and kitchens are "faith based," using the terminology of the Bush administration. But their besieged directors overwhelmingly warn that government, not charities, must take the lead if poverty is to be properly confronted.

"We're faith-based by the old rules, not the new ones," Father Greenlaw carefully noted. "We'll be feeding more guests unless and until society decides we don't have to tolerate a huge underclass in our cities."

In the meantime, the pungent scene in the nave at Holy Apostles is unabashedly hunger-based. People are being fed, not proselytized, at dining tables where the pews used to be. A midday hubbub of satiation rises up, plain as the pipes of the church organ, as the line lengthens outside.

Source.

[KWhit]

That's so cute. (The post below mine is what I'm talking about).

Damn post order bug.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I am not allowed to watch The Daily Show...radii tivo's it, but I am "annoying" when I watch it b/c I don't pay enough attention and talk over it...so I am banned from watching

Actually, I am not too upset about it, I like Jon Stewart for his comedy but that is about it...

annoying was your word! I just said that I watch the daily show when you aren't around because you don't seem to like the show and I want to pay attention to it when i'm watching! Dork If it makes you feel better though I have Wednesday night's south park tivo'd and haven't watched it yet, lets watch that tonight.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The "culture of life" is a fucking joke. They seem to only be interested in the "life" of zygotes/embryos and vegetables. That's about it. The rest of us? Well, we can pretty much go to hell. Let's see...

Death Penalty? Check.
Firearms for all (That's right. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.)? Check.
Initiation of pre-emptive wars on that lead to the DEATH of thousands based on flimsy evidence? Check.
Not all that worried about massacares going on around the world (see: the Sudan)? Check.

This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. Democrats have dropped bombs (Kosovo) on folks and have stood by while horrific massacares have gone on (Rawanda). But if certain politicians are going to put themselves out there as being leaders of a "Culture of Life" movement, they have a pretty narrow view of what "life" is worth being protected or whatever the hell their culture is alleged to support.

Where to begin?

First, most death penalty cases involve murder, or a series of murders. Most "Culture of Life" people are extremely religious, and draw the death penalty sentence from an "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," passage in the Bible. Second, regarding the death penalty, in most cases the perpetrator of a death penalty made a conscious decision to murder someone. Unlike the aborted child, he knew what was happening, or was going to happen. He was aware of the consequences. In cases where the person was medically insane, or was not in possession of his faculties, he should not get the penalty.

Guns DO NOT kill people. I cannot remember the last time I say a .22 get up and walk over to someone to kill them. A person pulls the trigger. Did you know, more deaths in the US are caused by screwdrivers used as a weapon than guns? Are we going to outlaw the Phillips head next?

I will give you a pass on the war issue, because it depends on how you look at it. Saddam killed thousands of his own people, more than the war caused, so taking his regime down means fewer deaths down the road. However, this was not a stated case for going to war to begin with. Could this war lead to fewer lives by exporting democracy to an area where it could thrive? The Iraqi people have always held western culture in higher esteem than the other countries in the region. Democracy could take hold there and be exported into adjacent countries. This could lead to fewer deaths down the road. How often do democracies go down the path of world domination?

Regarding Sudan, I give you a point. However, there are plenty of aid workers there. What more do you want us to do? Should we send in the military? If we do, aren't people going to complain that we are not finishing the jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq first?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Where to begin?

Indeed.

First, most death penalty cases involve murder, or a series of murders. Most "Culture of Life" people are extremely religious, and draw the death penalty sentence from an "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," passage in the Bible.

Neatly forgetting, of course, the myriad other parts of the Bible which clearly and explicitly proscribe entertaining penalties for various crimes. Stoning for adulterers, for instance.

Second, regarding the death penalty, in most cases the perpetrator of a death penalty made a conscious decision to murder someone. Unlike the aborted child, he knew what was happening, or was going to happen. He was aware of the consequences. In cases where the person was medically insane, or was not in possession of his faculties, he should not get the penalty.

By "aborted child", you mean "unwanted egg" of course.

Also, the woman, whose body it is of which we speak, knows what is happening, and is fully aware of the consequences.

Guns DO NOT kill people. I cannot remember the last time I say a .22 get up and walk over to someone to kill them. A person pulls the trigger. Did you know, more deaths in the US are caused by screwdrivers used as a weapon than guns? Are we going to outlaw the Phillips head next?

When in doubt, anthropomorphize guns! What fun!

Anyway, I'd like to see a link of proof on the guns/screwdrivers thing.

However, I believe it's true that car accidents cause more deaths in American each year than guns. Why not ban cars?!?!

The primary purpose of a firearm is to end life.

The primary purpose of a screwdriver is to screw screws.

The primary purpose of a car is transportation.

That's the point here.

I will give you a pass on the war issue, because it depends on how you look at it. Saddam killed thousands of his own people, more than the war caused, so taking his regime down means fewer deaths down the road. However, this was not a stated case for going to war to begin with. Could this war lead to fewer lives by exporting democracy to an area where it could thrive? The Iraqi people have always held western culture in higher esteem than the other countries in the region. Democracy could take hold there and be exported into adjacent countries. This could lead to fewer deaths down the road. How often do democracies go down the path of world domination?

That's "giving a pass"?

You can't prove that we've caused less Iraqis to die than would have died under Saddam, and you can't predict what's going to happen in that country over the next few years. If, for instance, a religious civil war arises and spills over into the other countries, your "culture of life" argument will look very bad indeed.

Regarding Sudan, I give you a point. However, there are plenty of aid workers there. What more do you want us to do? Should we send in the military? If we do, aren't people going to complain that we are not finishing the jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq first?

It's not my fault that the President's foolish priorities doesn't allow us to address pressing world issues.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

...

Guns DO NOT kill people. I cannot remember the last time I say a .22 get up and walk over to someone to kill them. A person pulls the trigger. Did you know, more deaths in the US are caused by screwdrivers used as a weapon than guns? Are we going to outlaw the Phillips head next?
...

While I do appreciate and agree with most of your post, I think the bit about screwdrivers is more than a bit beyond belief.

I do agree that people kill people not guns, because I have firearms in my house, and I have yet to kill anyone. My in-laws have a helluva a lot of guns in their home, yet no one seems to die. It is possible to be a completely law abiding gun owner, and that is the problem I have with most gun control laws. That fact seems to be ignored.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You can't prove that we've caused less Iraqis to die than would have died under Saddam, and you can't predict what's going to happen in that country over the next few years. If, for instance, a religious civil war arises and spills over into the other countries, your "culture of life" argument will look very bad indeed.

I hear this argument from people time to time and it never fails to strike me as being intentionally obtuse. The moral case for using force to change the regime in Iraq was ironclad. If you want to argue that US national interest was better served by acting differently than we did, I will be engaged and interested in what you say. But this argument just makes you sound ... silly.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I do agree that people kill people not guns, because I have firearms in my house, and I have yet to kill anyone. My in-laws have a helluva a lot of guns in their home, yet no one seems to die. It is possible to be a completely law abiding gun owner, and that is the problem I have with most gun control laws. That fact seems to be ignored.

This is the point we should be concentrating on, and not waxing lyrical (and idiotic) about guns walking around killing people, cars killing people, etc....

The gun control laws in the U.S. are merely a bandaid. They don't address the root cause of gun violence. All these laws do is attempt to make it so that some of the guns aren't in as widespread a distribution as possible, and they don't even really succeed at that.

I'm not convinced, however, that the "solution" as the NRA would have you believe, is completely unrestricted gun ownership.

Again, it's about root causes, and no one wants to discuss that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I hear this argument from people time to time and it never fails to strike me as being intentionally obtuse. The moral case for using force to change the regime in Iraq was ironclad. If you want to argue that US national interest was better served by acting differently than we did, I will be engaged and interested in what you say. But this argument just makes you sound ... silly.

First of all, I'm not the only person being obtuse in this debate.

Secondly, while the goal of removing Saddam was noble, it certainly wasn't enough of a reason to invade Iraq. If it was, then I can list perhaps 20 countries we should have invaded in the past decade or so.

That's my point, and we've argued about this elsewhere. I don't want someone telling me that we invaded Iraq solely or primarily to give the people of Iraq a better life. To argue so is to conveniently forget the bulk of the rhetoric of the summer of 2002, as well as the Administration's stated, documented, arguments for the war before the UN and other bodies in the same time period.

The fact that the Administration now wants to recast the invasion of Iraq as a primarily humanitarian mission is simple historical re-writing done to cover their screwups. If they were so hell-bent on those goals (and they weren't remember Bush's "we're not into nation-building" from his first campaign) there are plenty of other places they could have invaded.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Did you know, more deaths in the US are caused by screwdrivers used as a weapon than guns? Are we going to outlaw the Phillips head next?

One for the absolute bullshit statistic and two for the message.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I'm not the only person being obtuse in this debate.

True dat.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Secondly, while the goal of removing Saddam was noble, it certainly wasn't enough of a reason to invade Iraq. If it was, then I can list perhaps 20 countries we should have invaded in the past decade or so.

That's my point, and we've argued about this elsewhere. I don't want someone telling me that we invaded Iraq solely or primarily to give the people of Iraq a better life.

I don't know that anybody's argued that - what I am objecting to is folks who paint a picture of Iraq as being potentially worse off because of the US invasion.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

To argue so is to conveniently forget the bulk of the rhetoric of the summer of 2002, as well as the Administration's stated, documented, arguments for the war before the UN and other bodies in the same time period.

The fact that the Administration now wants to recast the invasion of Iraq as a primarily humanitarian mission is simple historical re-writing done to cover their screwups. If they were so hell-bent on those goals (and they weren't remember Bush's "we're not into nation-building" from his first campaign) there are plenty of other places they could have invaded.

Bush did transform his foreign policy after 9/11. I can just imagine what his critics would be saying about him if he HADN'T. But anyway ... the administration was terrified that Saddam had (or would have, very soon, which in any case is the same thing) WMD's. Given those circumstances, they would have been insane to allow him to stay in power.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know that anybody's argued that - what I am objecting to is folks who paint a picture of Iraq as being potentially worse off because of the US invasion.

As I'm sure I've said in another thread: call me in 3 years.

Bush did transform his foreign policy after 9/11. I can just imagine what his critics would be saying about him if he HADN'T. But anyway ... the administration was terrified that Saddam had (or would have, very soon, which in any case is the same thing) WMD's. Given those circumstances, they would have been insane to allow him to stay in power.

Why be terrified of Saddam having WMDs and not Kim Il Jung? Why be terrified of Saddam having WMDs but not worrying about the black market tradings of Pakistani scientist and some military officers?

Why pick the one accused person who the IAEA said was basically in compliance?

You're giving Bush way too much of a free pass.

[Whar]

Well Fresno has had about 26 murders this year. 23 by gun shots so screwdrivers are down by at least 20 in Central Cali.

[st.cronin]

North Korea is a rogue state in a stable region. A war with North Korea couldn't happen without cooperation from China, which is unlikely. These are pragmatic reasons for moving intervention in North Korea down our 'to-do' list.

And you're being obtuse again if you think that Bush is NOT worried about the 'black market tradings of Pakistani etc.' It's a totally different issue, though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

While I do appreciate and agree with most of your post, I think the bit about screwdrivers is more than a bit beyond belief.

I do agree that people kill people not guns, because I have firearms in my house, and I have yet to kill anyone. My in-laws have a helluva a lot of guns in their home, yet no one seems to die. It is possible to be a completely law abiding gun owner, and that is the problem I have with most gun control laws. That fact seems to be ignored.

I agree with you. Must gun owners are law abiding and the guns they use are never even pointed towards a human being. The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment. I really have no problem with the right to bear arms. What I am more refering to are actions such as the federal government allowing 10-year ban on 19 types of assault rifles expire. (see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...pons-ban_x.htm) That's the type of action, or in-action, I'm referring to.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

North Korea is a rogue state in a stable region. A war with North Korea couldn't happen without cooperation from China, which is unlikely. These are pragmatic reasons for moving intervention in North Korea down our 'to-do' list.

Don't view it as zero-sum. Were much of the Administration apparatus not focused on Iraq, surely more pressure (military &, crucially, otherwise) could be brought to bear on North Korea.

And you're being obtuse again if you think that Bush is NOT worried about the 'black market tradings of Pakistani etc.' It's a totally different issue, though.

Well, it's too late now anyway, as they already sold the various nuclear secrets. So I guess it's OK for us to sell them fighter planes now, right?

To me, Bush's foreign policy, given all these examples, seems hypocritical and self-serving at worst or inconsistent and poorly-planned at best.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Did you know, more deaths in the US are caused by screwdrivers used as a weapon than guns? ?

This is very interesting. I've never heard this stastic before. Would you mind providing a source?

[KWhit]

Wow. Screwdrivers, huh? Did Charlton Heston tell you that?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by panerd

One for the absolute bullshit statistic and two for the message.

The statistic is true, maybe the message was bad, but the point remains. Anything can be turned into a weapon. It is intention, not the item, that makes things dangerous. I can turn a pencil into a weapon if I want.

My point regarding gun control laws is that they do not solve the problem.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Neatly forgetting, of course, the myriad other parts of the Bible which clearly and explicitly proscribe entertaining penalties for various crimes. Stoning for adulterers, for instance.

Not going to argue those points either. I was pointing out what the "Culture of Life" people would point to. That is why I have never been a biblical literalist because you can pull many things out of there, and several items back up diametrically opposed points of view.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

By "aborted child", you mean "unwanted egg" of course.

Also, the woman, whose body it is of which we speak, knows what is happening, and is fully aware of the consequences.

She should have made sure it was bagged before engaging in the act. If she doesn't want to get pregnant, she could also have the tubes tied. At what point do you draw the line between a child and an "unwanted egg". Actually, it would cease being an egg at conception and become a zygote, but semantics aside, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

When in doubt, anthropomorphize guns! What fun!

That wasn't me. Remember, I was trying to illustrate how a gun, with no other item or person involved would kill someone. A gun by itself cannot do anything.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Anyway, I'd like to see a link of proof on the guns/screwdrivers thing.

However, I believe it's true that car accidents cause more deaths in American each year than guns. Why not ban cars?!?!

I do not have the data at my fingertips, if I get a chance later I will dig it up. But cars make the point just as well, and it IS a well established fact that far more people in the US are killed by cars every year. My point still stands.

[timmynausea]

Where did you get the statistic? How many deaths are caused by screwdrivers?

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Radii

annoying was your word! I just said that I watch the daily show when you aren't around because you don't seem to like the show and I want to pay attention to it when i'm watching! Dork If it makes you feel better though I have Wednesday night's south park tivo'd and haven't watched it yet, lets watch that tonight.

Ummm...that is OK, how about a couple episodes of CSI instead????

[KWhit]

I don't know why I felt the need to actually look this up, since it is so obvious complete utter bullshit, but:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon

Originally Posted by US Department of Justice

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

NOT:

Originally Posted by Warhammer's Made Up Statistical B.S.

Homicides are most often committed with screwdrivers, especially phillips screwdrivers. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with screwdrivers, 16% with other hand tools, 13% with nails, 5% with blunt wrenches, and 16% with other things commonly found in a tool shed such as fertilizer or paint brushes. Guns accounted for NO murders in the years tracked.

[timmynausea]

What about just deaths occurring in a garden? Particularly gardens within 20 yards of a tool shed.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I do not have the data at my fingertips, if I get a chance later I will dig it up. But cars make the point just as well, and it IS a well established fact that far more people in the US are killed by cars every year. My point still stands.

Not really. I think one has to draw a distinction between accidental deaths and homicides. There is also quite a difference between banning all guns and letting bans on assault rifles expire. I never advocated that guns needed to banned, but to use the driving analogy, it would be akin to letting the ban on drunk driving expire or increasing speed limits.

[flere-imsaho]

Shockingly, 100% of murders involve people.

We should get rid of these menaces to society.

[Daimyo]

Screwdrivers? Are you serious? You absolutely have to provide a source on that.

[Warhammer]

If I get a chance to look it up I will, if not I will come back and eat some crow. But, the car analogy does prove my point. Also, if I remember correctly, the statistic was not homicides but just deaths, accidental deaths were included in the numbers.

[KWhit]

So you're saying there are a lot of accidental deaths by screwdriver that add to the totals I posted above?

That also means that there are significantly more accidental deaths by screwdriver than by guns.

Yeah. Right.

[Warhammer]

OK, I cannot find the statistics for it. The only statistic I was able to find was a number of 9360 gun deaths back in 96 or 91. Anyway, I still stand by what I said, I did not just make it up, but will admit defeat for sake of the argument.

However, that still does not change the central thesis that guns are not bad or evil, and guns by themselves do NOT cause injury. Also, the primary use of guns domestically is not to kill people, but to hunt. Guns can also use bullets that do not kill but only incapacitate (rubber bullets). Again, guns do not kill, it is only when used with the intent to kill someone that they cause harm.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

OK, I cannot find the statistics for it. The only statistic I was able to find was a number of 9360 gun deaths back in 96 or 91. Anyway, I still stand by what I said, I did not just make it up, but will admit defeat for a lack of evidence.

Fixed that for you.

However, that still does not change the central thesis that guns are not bad or evil, and guns by themselves do NOT cause injury. Also, the primary use of guns domestically is not to kill people, but to hunt.

The primary use of guns is to end life. Human, animal, vegetable, whatever. Guns, unlike cars or screwdrivers, are optimized for this purpose.

Guns can also use bullets that do not kill but only incapacitate (rubber bullets). Again, guns do not kill, it is only when used with the intent to kill someone that they cause harm.

So every 6-year-old who kills his friend because he found his Dad's pistol and didn't know what he was doing intends to cause harm?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Fixed that for you.



The primary use of guns is to end life. Human, animal, vegetable, whatever. Guns, unlike cars or screwdrivers, are optimized for this purpose.[/i]?

I hunt the wild carrot.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I hunt the wild carrot.

The most dangerous of prey!

[timmynausea]

Wait, I think I figured it out. More people are killed by screwdrivers than guns if you count being shot to death as being killed by a bullet and not a gun.

[QuikSand]

Well.. maybe if you decide that most victims of gun violence were technically killed by bullets rather than by guns, then you might have an argument about guns themselves being a fairly uncommon source of death. That's some fancy wordsmithing, though.

As far as screwdrivers... hmm. I'm stumped there. Bernhard Goetz aside, I just don't know how frequently the screwedriver is used as a weapon. I guess it's theoretically possible that more people are killed with sharpened screwdrivers than are bludgeoned with guns.

[QuikSand]

"Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Well.. maybe if you decide that most victims of gun violence were technically killed by bullets rather than by guns, then you might have an argument about guns themselves being a fairly uncommon source of death. That's some fancy wordsmithing, though.

As far as screwdrivers... hmm. I'm stumped there. Bernhard Goetz aside, I just don't know how frequently the screwedriver is used as a weapon. I guess it's theoretically possible that more people are killed with sharpened screwdrivers than are bludgeoned with guns.

This is one I can say for sure: More people are stabbed to death by screwdrivers than by guns.