Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally per [View all]That nonsensical.
Really?
"Dad, can I use the gun?"
"For what?"
"I'm going to fire 100 rounds at paper targets."
"That's not a single use, that's 100 uses."
or
"How was your day at the range, beevul?"
"Great! I used my beloved gun 250 times!"
Does that exchange happen often in your gun-loving world?
My example is absolutely no more nonsensical than yours. Your insistence that they are different, that a different standard should apply to your beloved guns, is special pleading.
Criminal shoots someone with a single shot. Is that a "use"?
Think real hard before you answer that.
Why? Because you think that your simplistic question is tricky or challenging? Puh-leeze.
Think real hard before you answer that.
If the person fires the gun once and secures it in its case or holster, then that's a single use.
If the person fires the gun twice and secures it in its case or holster, then that's a single use.
If the person fires the gun ten times and secures it in its case or holster, then that's a single use.
If the person fires the gun and secures it in its case or holster, then takes it out and fires once and secures it in its case or holster again, then that's two uses.
We can define "a use" in multiple ways, none of them favorable to your position. Personally, I favor the definition that "a use" as "the period during which the object has the realistic potential for lethality." For a car, that's the period when the car is not parked. For a gun, that's the period when the gun is not secure in its case or holster. More broadly, "a use" might be considered the perod during which the object constitutes a threat.
Before you object that a gun is no longer a threat once the clip is empty, consider this: if a gunman were stalking your office while carrying his beloved gun, his CCL (legally obtained, of course) and 500 rounds of ammunition, would you declare the threat to be over after he'd emptied his first 15-round clip? Do you think that the SWAT team would consider him no longer a threat at that point? Or would you consider the threat active until the gun is rendered harmless?
When he's standing there, reloading with 15 of the paltry 485 rounds left at his disposal, do you stand up from behind your desk and bravely announce to your coworkers that the threat is over? Or do you, like a sane human being, recognize that the threat is still real while the gun is still in use?
Nothing you say changes the fact, that like a bow and arrow, each shot is an individual action.
That analogy is bullshit, unless your bow is equipped with an auto-reloader, or unless we're talking about single-shot firearms like a flintlock musket. Are you aware of many shooting sprees carried out with a Snaphance and powderhorn?
Each shot requires aiming and firing.
Firing? Sure. Aiming? Not so much, unless "aiming" means "the barrel is pointing in some direction."
For that matter, every moment spent behind the wheel with a car in motion requires "aiming," so by your definition each moment is "a use" of the car.
Go look at a paper target some time. Its not a simple as pulling the trigger one time and having a bunch of holes end up in that target. Your argument, is akin to saying that one hasn't "used" a book of matches, until or unless you light the whole book.
And you're equating "use of the gun" to "use of the bullets," which is false. Also, a gun can also be used to threaten, even if it's not fired, as long as the victim thinks that it constitutes a real threat--which means that the victim need only think that it's loaded. In short, a gun's "use" does not depend on the number of bullets fired.
Nothing that comes from you anti-gun folks is objective.
Well, that's simply untrue. However, gun-lovers will say literally anything to prop up the illusion that their beloved death machines are less deadly than reality shows us time and again.Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
390 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally per [View all]
sarisataka
Jan 2015
OP
The only Clarence I know is white, why would you assume he was black? n/t
A Simple Game
Jan 2015
#122
So white guy assumes black guy is up to no good, really? never heard of that before
NoJusticeNoPeace
Jan 2015
#230
I know 12 Clarence's and not one is black, now if you said Bob or Mike that would be different
juxtaposed
Jan 2015
#160
and the fact that foster is white, and daniels is black has absolutely nothing to do with it, right?
niyad
Jan 2015
#172
Before or after he jammed the fire doors shut with his vehicle, and then started shooting?
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#297
Most crimes don't result in dead people if you guess wrong about pre-empting it.
gcomeau
Jan 2015
#353
Your counterpoint completely breaks down in the face of a drunk driver.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#355
The notion that an innocent person has the right to walk in public without being assaulted
cui bono
Jan 2015
#356
Problem with that is we see pictures and reports of WHITE people PROUDLY (and stupidly) carrying
NoJusticeNoPeace
Jan 2015
#302
Who is safer? Had Mr. Daniels defended himself against this mentally disturbed
jtuck004
Jan 2015
#145
Still pellet guns are not "toy guns"..and can be used for hunting small game & pests.
EX500rider
Jan 2015
#325
They are all vigilantes, why carry a killing machine around in public? It gives them purpose in life..sad.
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#72
The police will tell you to stop bothering them if he or she isn't doing anything threatening.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#13
911 will help you with that litmus test. It goes like this. "Is he threatening anyone, or acting in
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#44
No, that was a toy gun, he died because he could only pretend to defend himself.
A Simple Game
Jan 2015
#139
In certain states and local towns, the majority will be walking in the store with guns
Reter
Jan 2015
#76
Actually no. Disproportionate use of force. His life not in danger, he is in a public space etc.
on point
Jan 2015
#75
I love that you are essentially castigating this man for showing restraint.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#126
He was not attacked for carrying a gun. He was attacked because he is black and carrying a gun.
TeamPooka
Jan 2015
#318
That man was murdered by a 'well intentioned' bystander that lied and called police.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#20
Yes, much more safe to wait until someone starts shooting. Because that never happens.
djean111
Jan 2015
#9
Wow, that's a non-logical stretch - no, everyone who carries a gun into a mall or store MIGHT
djean111
Jan 2015
#324
I am saying that there is no way to tell if a man carrying a gun into a mall or store is
djean111
Jan 2015
#335
The pervasive fear of the gun nuts justifies their killing machines even in legislatures...they are
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#74
The GOP, Fox and the NRA have been very good, you again have it backwards.
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#80
Yawn, the NRA/GOP/Fox propaganda points are tired and worn thin, sir...but it is all you got, we get it.
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#138
That's far from the first instance of that sort of thing from him:
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2015
#240
I didn't mean a license. I meant an unconcealed gun when the letter of the law calls for concealed.
Sunlei
Jan 2015
#177
I wondered because its usually parking lots where someone who carries pays the most attention.
Sunlei
Jan 2015
#187
It is very difficult to tell the difference between a nut with a gun and a gun nut. nt.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2015
#48
Wonder if he would have been so "well-intentioned" if the guy wasn't Black.
progressoid
Jan 2015
#49
Take suicide out of the equation and guns aren't so dangerous to innocent bystanders, are they?
hack89
Jan 2015
#146
We were talking about the threat to my family, remember? In the town where I live.
hack89
Jan 2015
#167
Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed you've never *needed* those detectors.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#303
"And you?" Did you take any college statistics courses? Does your job require analysis?
Taitertots
Jan 2015
#250
Any other legal activities you think folks should be assaulted and battered for?
Glengoolie
Jan 2015
#278
Sure, if you suffer some mental deficiency that requires you to think only literally
Orrex
Jan 2015
#286
The amazing thing is that some people miss the obvious parrallels to the Eric Brown case
Taitertots
Jan 2015
#208
A pack of hypocrites and selective tough guys, advocating violence against the law abiding
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2015
#246
40 year old white guy tackles 62 year old black guy from back. Stinking coward. n/t
jtuck004
Jan 2015
#113
why is there sympathy for the ammosexual? obviously his gun was not WELL hidden.
pansypoo53219
Jan 2015
#210
Sigh, because his was violently assaulted for doing absolutely nothing wrong or illegal,
branford
Jan 2015
#215
Where I come from, we learned shooting an unarmed man is NEVER legitimate.
ncjustice80
Jan 2015
#258
Why dont you ask Michael Brown's family about their opinion on the subject?
ncjustice80
Jan 2015
#338
Black man carrying gun = attack him. White man carrying gun = excersizing Constitional rights. nt
TeamPooka
Jan 2015
#312
I'm kind of surprised Wally World didn't make crap up to get Daniels arrested instead of Foster.
47of74
Jan 2015
#350
The so called vigilante is lucky the guy wasn't an off duty, undercover cop.
ohnoyoudidnt
Jan 2015
#359
I hope the guy who got tackled sues the other guy, and walmart, and wins big. I've seen people
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#362