Guns don't kill people ....

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

What's with all these diversions... abortions, assisted suicides, drownings ?

Dwellars are bright enough to know none of these have anything to do with guns killing people.
Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
... and guns would still be killing people just the same

A reasonable extension of your rhetoric would have been:

Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
Shootings might be brought to zero

Then you could have asked for proposals on how to accomplish it; but, you didn't. Instead you went off with language that irrationally attributes actions to man made objects that aren't capable of acting on their own.

Where others see analogies, you see diversions: that's because you're set on one course of action that you see as a panacea while others see it as a placebo. You can't get rid of all guns any more than you can get rid of everything people can drown in, that people can use to commit suicide; or, ways people can perform an abortion.

You exhibit the same kind of mindset that causes me to think of some people as gun fanatics, in your case an antigun fanatic. There's no real room for discussion with those in either group. You've convinced me that your question was rhetorical.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

If you know this is happening, what do you propose ?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by sexobon

A reasonable extension of your rhetoric would have been:

Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
Shootings might be brought to zero

Then you could have asked for proposals on how to accomplish it; but, you didn't. <snip>

You exhibit the same kind of mindset that causes me to think of some people as gun fanatics,
in your case an antigun fanatic. There's no real room for discussion with those in either group.
You've convinced me that your question was rhetorical.

OK Stormie, you may consider me an anti-gun fanatic,
but first please consider one of my previous postings.

I really don't intend my question to be rhetorical.
If it helps, use your words above to address the real question:
How do you propose shootings might be brought to zero ?

Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If he'd asked to be shot, the other guy wouldn't have shot him? Like reverse psychology or something? What are you on about?

sexobon: ... instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience!

Happy Monkey: ... Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".

I used the concept of security referring to the person who did the shooting. You turned "secured" into a euphemism for being shot, apparently just to make a flippant connection to euthanasia. I was comparing Lamplighter to Zimmerman both of whom are relevant to the discussion. You went off on a tangent contrasting Trayvon Martin to unknown euthanasia participants.

sexobon: ... Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.

Here, I returned to using the concept of security in my original relevant context suggesting that if Trayvon Martin had asked Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch member) to protect [secure] him when they met, Trayvon Martin couldn't have been characterized as a threat and might still be alive today.

Thank you for your question.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

... Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.

[bold mine]
You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns." You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators. That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject. Thanks for the entertainment.

[Lamplighter]

You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns."
You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators.
That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject.
Thanks for the entertainment.

Oh, sure I can: "People are killing others with guns"
I can also say people are unintentionally killing others with guns
I can also say people are unintentionally killing themselves with guns
And yes, I do portray people as victims... they are the victims.

Once again, it's down to name-calling and quibbling over my wording.
It's OK to write me off --- that matters little, and I'm sorry to lose the conversation.
But what does matter is to be aware of a problem, but find a pretext to avoid it.

Take care.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sexobon

sexobon: ... instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience!

Happy Monkey: ... Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".

I used the concept of security referring to the person who did the shooting.

Right. Zimmerman did the shooting. Zimmerman killed in the name of security. Treyvon Martin was killed by Zimmerman. Of course I

turned "secured" into a euphemism for being shot, apparently just to make a flippant connection to euthanasia.

Actually, you introduced the flippant between Treyvon Martin and euthanasia:

Originally Posted by sexobon

Oregon Sets Assisted Suicide Record

Go, go, go Oregonians

sexobon: ... Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.

Here, I returned to using the concept of security in my original relevant context...

( Zimmerman providing "security" for his neighborhood)

... suggesting that if Trayvon Martin had asked Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch member) to protect [secure] him when they met, Trayvon Martin couldn't have been characterized as a threat and might still be alive today.

If he'd done what? Approached the armed man who's been following him around and asked him for protection from... what? Again, what are you on about?

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

OK Stormie, you may consider me an anti-gun fanatic,
but first please consider one of my previous postings.

I really don't intend my question to be rhetorical.
If it helps, use your words above to address the real question:
How do you propose shootings might be brought to zero ?

Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.

Oops. I didn't say the above. Maybe you meant Sexobon?

[Lamplighter]

Hey, Stormie, I do apologize... my bad... no idea how that came about.