If we're talking about vehicle, then are we speaking of things like tanks, mine clearer's, street cleaner's, etc.? At that point, wouldn't shotgun tasers, bean bag launchers, paintball guns, and, to a lesser extent, weapons with scopes, also serve purposes outside of destroying or otherwise damaging another object?
Sure, but the purpose in that is still the same: the transportation of material from one point to another.
You're confusing imaginary with your lack of knowledge. Given your history, I don't actually care whether you become aware of the answer or not. You play the same record over and over. You engage people you consider "braggarts" and know-nothings in discussion when they did not engage you in one, you follow it up by demanding things of them while lacking the the ability to command an actual and honest discussion, then you decide things are tiresome when the person you dislike decides not to play your uninteresting game.
You aren't on equal footing. I at least respect the ability of the people I have engaged in discussion on this thread. You've decided to latch yourself on to those who are capable of making actual points(even though those points have nothing to do with my gun control neutrality), with your eyeroll faces and your flippant comments in which you try and make a point without actually saying anything of note. You don't qualify. You're entertainment.
- - - Updated - - -
Do tell, what's changed?
Certainly, though plenty of folks have knives also, but people don't buy every type of gun for self defense. There are a variety of guns, race guns, plinkers, varminters (certainly designed to kill groundhogs, but not a self-defense arm by any means). The fact that "self defense" is one of the reasons for purchasing some types of guns does not mean all guns are designed for it, as it were.
This may have evolved along a different thread than what your initial contribution was into a more general topic, so I'm just commenting on the general topic.
More distractions instead of an actual substantive reply, I'm shocked...
I'm not the only person asking you to spell out what other purposes there are. You could just simply say "these are the practical purposes _____," instead you engage in these personal attacks / snarky nonsense. Seems like that's your thing.
I am for a general ban, like basically Joe Blow cannot walk into Franks gun shop and buy an Assault Rifle. But if you are a law abiding citizen with a clean record, you could go through the proper channels and have to get a special permit to own one. I am all for that.
If you're curious about their methodology, then criticize it directly. Hypothetical questions aren't particularly useful. And if you're going to reject the scientific method, then you have to reject all of it, including the studies it produces that actually support your argument.
I don't know why it's so hard to believe that non-fatal injuries with firearms have increased in the past decade. You can admit it. The world won't explode.
- - - Updated - - -
Again. They are measuring two completely different things.
A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.
The poll told me what the poll told me. Multiple polls said the same thing. I posted it because I figured it was relevant information.
Why there's less support isn't necessarily as important as the simple fact that there is less support. But the downward trend mirrors the downward trend in gun crime.
A spike after the events of Newtown, but a sharp return to the downward trend afterward. And no successive spike after the D.C. navy yard shootings. Mostly because there was no evil, black gun to blame for the event, so the focus stays on the proper target: problems with mental illness.
Edit: Time for work. No responses from me for a while.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Two points:
1. Assault Rifles are defined as rifles with the capacity to fire more than one round with a single pull of a trigger. These are either full auto or select fire rifles and have been largely unavailable to the general populous since the ban on their manufacture in the 1930's. Beyond that the import of said assault rifles has been banned since the 1980's and existing ones within the country were grandfathered, however the cost of such a weapon is outside the realm of what most people would spend on one. Even further, the purchase of said assault rifle is subject to an ATFE background check and additional taxing with a generally accepted wait time of approximately 6 months. The term you were looking to use is "assault weapon" which is an ambiguous term used by politicians and gun control groups to describe a rifle that looks scary.
2. To purchase a weapon at "Frank's Gun Shop" one has to submit to an NICS background check prior to receipt of said weapon and depending on the state/locality additional registration and permitting may be required.
What you seem to be proposing is not a general ban, but an increase in background checks, training and vetting of an individual prior to the purchase of a firearm.
I can support the scientific method without accepting everything that has been done under its banner. I can pose hypotheticals because I have not seen where the variables are accounted for. I also know the CDC has some odd ways of doing things, like counting 18 year olds as children.
I don't know, but if you're going to say "this is how many people are injured by firearms every year, and it's an increasing trend, therefore gun violence is on the rise" you need to exclude non-crime related injuries before making that assertion. I'm sure the data exists somewhere.
Right. The data certainly exists, and I'm not exactly itching to find it. I think we can assume that since the total number (noncriminal + criminal) has increased, each category separately has also increased.
Assumptions aside, I'm perfectly fine with the statement "non-fatal firearm injuries have increased in the past decade." Regardless of intent, the outcome is negative. An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.
It's hard to legislate responsibility. But people shouldn't have to die for other people's lack thereof either.
Agreed. But unless/until everyone is protected by a personal forcefield, or we have precogs to prevent crime, or the minority of the population (you know, the criminals) decides that crime is wrong, it's still better for (law-abiding, and hopefully responsible) citizens to have the right to bear arms. And once we get to such a utopia where violence is unheard of, there's no reason to restrict the right to bear arms...so, in actuality, whether or not there is crime, there is no reason to restrict the right of the law-abiding populace to bear arms.