Author Topic: are guns dangerous? (Read 1832 times)

45-70.gov · « **on:** March 21, 2009, 12:14:45 PM »

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/FACT_SHEET_FirearmAccidentFacts2009.pdf

this will be good to show anti gun nuts

kitchawan kid · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2009, 12:49:49 PM »

Copyed and e-mailed out,but you can confuse people with the facts.

pastorp · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2009, 02:14:24 PM »

Not in and of themselves. "Are hammers dangerous" The problen is careless, uneducated(about firearms safety) mean people.

Guns don't kill. People kill, and sometimes they use guns. From those stats they use cars the most to do their killing.

Hay, Lets ban cars............No wait a minuite how will I get to the range to shoot my gun. Bad idea,,,,

Brett · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2009, 04:39:09 PM »

Q: Are guns dangerous?

A: Only if you are at the wrong end of them.

Cheesehead · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2009, 06:15:28 PM »

Guns are inanimate.

It is impossible for them to be dangerous.

Cheese

williamlayton · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2009, 09:59:28 PM »

To quote another from history. If the damned old thing aint dangerous I wouldn't carry it.
Blessings

45-70.gov · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2009, 05:38:30 AM »

did you notice how florida compares to the national average?

??

we have some of the best gun laws too
one of the first with a shall issue concealed weapon permit law

my printer is broke
i wanted to make a copy because i need to go to the doctor tomorrow
i wanted to point out to my doctor he is 5 times as dangerous as a gun

kitchawan kid · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2009, 07:10:11 AM »

Wait till you turn and cough before you show him.

dukkillr · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2009, 07:24:44 AM »

Quote from: Cheesehead on March 21, 2009, 06:15:28 PM

Guns are inanimate.

It is impossible for them to be dangerous.

Cheese

I've always thought this was an interesting view point. To me that means that a stick of dynamite and a tooth brush both have equal levels of danger. That doesn't make much sense to me. Some things require more care or caution. Why? Well because those things have the capacity to be more dangerous.

Cheesehead · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2009, 07:48:15 AM »

Quote from: dukkillr on March 22, 2009, 07:24:44 AM

Quote from: Cheesehead on March 21, 2009, 06:15:28 PM
Guns are inanimate.

It is impossible for them to be dangerous.

Cheese
I've always thought this was an interesting view point. To me that means that a stick of dynamite and a tooth brush both have equal levels of danger. That doesn't make much sense to me. Some things require more care or caution. Why? Well because those things have the capacity to be more dangerous.

None are dangerous until you add the element of humankind.

Cheese

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2009, 08:03:01 AM »

Nope guns are not dangerous but I am.

dukkillr · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2009, 08:06:21 AM »

Quote from: Cheesehead on March 22, 2009, 07:48:15 AM

Quote from: dukkillr on March 22, 2009, 07:24:44 AM
Quote from: Cheesehead on March 21, 2009, 06:15:28 PM
Guns are inanimate.

It is impossible for them to be dangerous.

Cheese
I've always thought this was an interesting view point. To me that means that a stick of dynamite and a tooth brush both have equal levels of danger. That doesn't make much sense to me. Some things require more care or caution. Why? Well because those things have the capacity to be more dangerous.

None are dangerous until you add the element of humankind.

Cheese

But one requires more care than another? Obviously you don't throw a stick of dynamite in your pocket and go about your day... I wonder why?

Cheesehead · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2009, 08:47:26 AM »

Foolishness is dangerous. Dynamite in a pocket is foolish.

Cheese

FWiedner · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2009, 09:26:29 AM »

Any tool can become dangerous when used improperly or imprudently.

By itself, a firearm is no more dangerous than a rock of similar size and weight. A firearm only becomes "dangerous" when it is loaded and then employed in a situation where it might be improperly used or accessed.

A firearm becomes dangerous through the poor choice of a human handling the firearm.

A stick of dynamite is inherently dangerous because it's chemical properties make it explosive, but even a stick of dynamite will not explode for no reason whatsoever.

There is no comparison between the two.

Cheesehead · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2009, 09:42:00 AM »

Quote from: FWiedner on March 22, 2009, 09:26:29 AM

Any tool can become dangerous when used improperly or imprudently.

By itself, a firearm is no more dangerous than a rock of similar size and weight. A firearm only becomes "dangerous" when it is loaded and then employed in a situation where it might be improperly used or accessed.

A firearm becomes dangerous through the poor choice of a human handling the firearm.

A stick of dynamite is inherently dangerous because it's chemical properties make it explosive, but even a stick of dynamite will not explode for no reason whatsoever.

There is no comparison between the two.

You are 100% correct sir.

dukkillr · « **Reply #15 on:** March 22, 2009, 09:45:26 AM »

Quote from: Cheesehead on March 22, 2009, 09:42:00 AM

Quote from: FWiedner on March 22, 2009, 09:26:29 AM
Any tool can become dangerous when used improperly or imprudently.

By itself, a firearm is no more dangerous than a rock of similar size and weight. A firearm only becomes "dangerous" when it is loaded and then employed in a situation where it might be improperly used or accessed.

A firearm becomes dangerous through the poor choice of a human handling the firearm.

A stick of dynamite is inherently dangerous because it's chemical properties make it explosive, but even a stick of dynamite will not explode for no reason whatsoever.

There is no comparison between the two.

You are 100% correct sir.

A) This a really stupid argument
B) So we can agree that some thing are inherently dangerous?

Cheesehead · « **Reply #16 on:** March 22, 2009, 09:48:33 AM »

I am still on the fence about the Dynamite thing.

Cheese

FWiedner · « **Reply #17 on:** March 22, 2009, 10:01:32 AM »

Quote from: dukkillr on March 22, 2009, 09:45:26 AM

B) So we can agree that some thing are inherently dangerous?

Not when firearms are included on that list.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 22, 2009, 10:40:00 AM »

The tool itself is not dangerous, it is the person who uses the tool that is. One of my platoon Sergents killed a VC with an entrenching tool, does that make an e tool dangerous?

nomosendero · « **Reply #19 on:** March 22, 2009, 10:52:36 AM »

Yes, Liberals are inherently dangerous & goofy as well.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #20 on:** March 22, 2009, 03:37:35 PM »

Quote from: nomosendero on March 22, 2009, 10:52:36 AM

Yes, Liberals are inherently dangerous & goofy as well.

I would add (Neo- Conservatives) to that statement.

Oh yea, And my wife, with anything in her hand, if she's mad at me!

lrs · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2009, 06:10:39 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on March 21, 2009, 09:59:28 PM

To quote another from history. If the damned old thing aint dangerous I wouldn't carry it.
Blessings

This sums up my feelings.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #22 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:39:05 AM »

williamlayton , you beat me to it . that old ranger was right !

kitchawan kid · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:52:11 AM »

I have carried dynamite (with out the detonators installed) and I've carried a handgun,I feel safer with the handgun,but you can use the dynamite as a club.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #24 on:** March 23, 2009, 08:08:41 AM »

you want pucker factor , light a lead pot . the one screwed to the top of a propane tank .

nomosendero · « **Reply #25 on:** March 23, 2009, 04:40:03 PM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on March 22, 2009, 03:37:35 PM

Quote from: nomosendero on March 22, 2009, 10:52:36 AM
Yes, Liberals are inherently dangerous & goofy as well.

I would add (Neo- Conservatives) to that statement.

Oh yea, And my wife, with anything in her hand, if she's mad at me!

That all would apply, but whats worse is that I taught my Wife to shoot.

Explorer1 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 23, 2009, 05:40:03 PM »

"So we can agree that some thing are inherently dangerous?"

The metal items setting in my gun safe have not only injuried fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car but many have made less noise than the neighbors kids in many years. How is that dangerous?

Stupidity and irresponsibility are dangerous. Some items, like strong acides and shock-sensitive chemicals could be considered inherently dangerous. But a piece of iron which has no ability to act on its own nor any characteristics which make it always a hazard?

Do they have the POTENTIAL? To that I must say yes.

But then again, as has been said before all females have the ability to be a Lady of the Night - that does NOT make them bad - nor does it make any of them bad by defintion, which is what the anti-gun crowd is doing to guns and gun owners. We are NOT talking about devices which have NO peaceful purposes - like nuc weapons here.

(Sorry ladies, just the easiest comparison I could quickly make and most people could understand)

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #27 on:** March 24, 2009, 02:00:09 AM »

if guns were not dangerous what good would they be ? same could be said for chain saws , explosives drills, autos , big trucks and just about anything that has moving parts .

rex6666 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 24, 2009, 06:50:49 AM »

Without Ammo a gun is no more dangerous than a hammer or ball bat.
so witch is the more dangerous the gun or the ammo.
take a stick of dynamite and lay it in a damp warm place until hair starts growing
on it and see witch is more dangerous.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #29 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:17:31 AM »

this just in...sports fans

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Sports_Injury_Facts2009.pdf

the safest sport