What's new
By:

El Paso Shooting

JazzyFresh said:
Go right ahead. That's basically what you're doing anyways.
Click to expand...
I'm basically starting a movement for toaster standard reform?

No, I'm posting on Jazzfanz and driving, at the SAME TIME.

Guns dont kill people...

Maybe NSFW for words




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
JazzyFresh said:
Seems to me your here just to cause mischief. Whatever though, carry on. When people start comparing a constitutional right to owning a toaster it's not worth my time.
Click to expand...
What mischief was I causing?
Oh and I didn't compare gun rights to a toaster.
What I did was compare concepts about removing a tool and the result of removing that tool and how it changes being able to do something.

See, people sometimes say that if guns were gone then people would still kill. So having guns or not having them makes no difference.
But it does make a difference. Guns are the most efficient, easiest way to kill for most people so it would make a difference to eliminate guns from the equation.
That's a concept.

I said that if there were no toasters then there would still be toast. It will just be harder to make toast without the toaster.

I don't think that toasters and guns are the same but the concept of removing either item and still being able to kill or make toast, just less efficiently, is just a way to show how stupid it would be to think there is no difference when you remove the most efficient way to do something. Obviously there would be a difference.

One could use many different examples to show this. If there were no fishing poles I could still wrap some string around a stick and possibly catch a fish but i would be more efficient with a fishing pole and catch a lot more fish. Much like if there were no guns people could still kill but they would be less efficient and there would be less murders.
I don't think a gun is the same thing as a fishing pole though.
Do you understand the concept? I tried to really spell it out for ya.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
What mischief was I causing?
Oh and I didn't compare gun rights to a toaster.
What I did was compare concepts about removing a tool and the result of removing that tool and how it changes being able to do something.

See, people sometimes say that if guns were gone then people would still kill. So having guns or not having them makes no difference.
But it does make a difference. Guns are the most efficient, easiest way to kill for most people so it would make a difference to eliminate guns from the equation.
That's a concept.

I said that if there were no toasters then there would still be toast. It will just be harder to make toast without the toaster.

I don't think that toasters and guns are the same but the concept of removing either item and still being able to kill or make toast, just less efficiently, is just a way to show how stupid it would be to think there is no difference when you remove the most efficient way to do something. Obviously there would be a difference.

One could use many different examples to show this. If there were no fishing poles I could still wrap some string around a stick and possibly catch a fish but i would be more efficient with a fishing pole and catch a lot more fish. Much like if there were no guns people could still kill but they would be less efficient and there would be less murders.
I don't think a gun is the same thing as a fishing pole though.
Do you understand the concept? I tried to really spell it out for ya.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
No because none of these are a constitutional right. None of these protect you from things like a tyrannical government, War, mass power outages and looting, global warming and looting, burglary, mass shootings, Trump, and I could go on. Hell, look around at our political climate and one could make an argument that we are in a form civil of war.

Does that mean I'm some paranoid "shadowboxer"? No. I sure as hell don't want any of this stuff to happen nor do I lose any sleep over it. I am prepared to defend myself if **** ever hits the fan though. As I said look at the history of humans. People have killed each other over a black Friday for hells sakes. Humans are not a stable being and we never have been. It sucks but it's true.
 
Last edited:
JazzyFresh said:
No because none of these are a constitutional right. None of these protect you from things like a tyrannical government, War, mass power outages and looting, global warming and looting, burglary, mass shootings, Trump, and I could go on. Hell, look around at our political climate and one could make an argument that we are in a form civil of war.

Does that mean I'm some paranoid "shadowboxer"? No. I sure as hell don't want any of this stuff to happen nor do I lose any sleep over it. I am prepared to defend myself if **** ever hits the fan though. As I said look at the history of humans. People have killed each other over a black Friday for hells sakes. Humans are not a stable being and we never have been. It sucks but it's true.
Click to expand...
While I like your post it didn't address mine whatsoever.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
While I like your post it didn't address mine whatsoever.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
That's because our reasonings behind being for or against guns are different. You specifically have said I don't need it while I hope I don't need it, but have it if I do.

As far as where you're coming from, I don't know. I don't think guns are the main problem. I think it is systematic. As I've said here in Wyoming we aren't shooting each other. We sure do hunt, kill predators, and sport shoot. Look at urban cities and it's fighting over territory, colors, drug deals, and straight up means of survival. Does taking away a "tool" fix that? Will these insane dirtbags stop wanting to mass kill? I say no... The tool is not the problem. The tool is just that.

Will we have less gun deaths? Yeah. Will the crime still be prevalent? I say yeah again. If people want toast bad enough, they will find a way
 
JazzyFresh said:
That's because our reasonings behind being for or against guns are different. You specifically have said I don't need it while I hope I don't need it, but have it if I do.

As far as where you're coming from, I don't know. I don't think guns are the main problem. I think it is systematic. As I've said here in Wyoming we aren't shooting each other. We sure do hunt, kill predators, and sport shoot. Look at urban cities and it's fighting over territory, colors, drug deals, and straight up means of survival. Does taking away a "tool" fix that? Will these insane dirtbags stop wanting to mass kill? I say no... The tool is not the problem. The tool is just that.

Will we have less gun deaths? Yeah. Will the crime still be prevalent? I say yeah again. If people want toast bad enough, they will find a way
Click to expand...
Fun fact- Wyoming is 11th in the US in per capita gun deaths. New York is 48th.
 
Zombie said:
Fun fact- Wyoming is 11th in the US in per capita gun deaths. New York is 48th.
Click to expand...
Take out suicide and the story changes significantly. Sadly there is a lot of suicide here. One of my good friends jumped off of a bridge. Wyoming as a whole had something like 10 murders by gun last year, thats sometimes a weekend in places like NY and Chicago.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Take out suicide and the story changes significantly. Sadly there is a lot of suicide here. One of my good friends jumped off of a bridge. Wyoming as a whole had something like 10 murders by gun last year, thats sometimes a weekend in places like NY and Chicago.
Click to expand...

We just shoot ourselves. Still though that's fair enough, let's widen our view a little. The states with the highest homicide by firearm rates per capita are Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and DC.

Not exactly the most Urban areas, outside of DC of course.
 
Last edited:
Zombie said:
That list looks like a pretty good mix of high density Urban areas and less densely populated cities. Kind of like there's something else going on here.
Click to expand...
Look at numbers not per capita. Sure there were 10 murders in Fairbanks but there were 342 in Baltimore. More people are getting killed in urban zones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top