Except that neither of those statements was ad hominem.
The first one was an opinion question. Would you rather have a a gun when you were being shot at, or not? The logic being that the gun would serve as a useful tool in crisis scenarios. I know that I would much rather have some way to defend myself than be a sitting duck on the firing range.
This prompts the question, why not take some other weapon along instead?
1) The firearm is easier to conceal than most other weapons
2) The weapons that are easier to conceal than a firearm would not be effective against a firearm (let's all be honest here, a man with a knife against a man with a gun, who would you put your money on?)
3) The firearm requires far less physical abilities in order to use effectively
4) The firearm can incapacitate or kill someone from a long range away. You could hypothetically take a crossbow or composite bow with you, but arguements 1 and 3, it is hard to conceal/take with you everywhere and it requires far more precision and training to use effectively.
5) Carrying a different weapon doesn't have the same psychological effect, at least not for me.
Let's talk about the other question you perceived as ad hominem.
"I would like to see you reload any firearm in under 3 seconds."
This was supposed to prove the point that the population at large could not reload a weapon nearly that fast. How many civilians have received enough firearm/military training in order to reload a firearm in 3 seconds? What about when you add in stress factors because of a violent or distraught situation? What about in warm weather when your hands are perspiring? There are tons of factors in play when in a crisis situation. Reloading a gun is a lot different when you're being shot at.
Dracemia you brought up the point "what if both people were amateurs?" The people who own firearms have most likely taken firearm classes, or are ex-military. You also have to factor in that people will go up to shooting ranges, or go and shoot the crap at the gunstore, or read magazines/internet articles/watch television about the subject. It's a hobby, and a sport, no matter how much you say it isn't. As with anything, the most informed and practiced people on the subject, will be the people who pursue the subject in a recreational or professional manner. How much can be said equally of the knife? I have no doubt there are niche groups with the sole purpose of sharing a wealth of information about knives and their uses, but it's nowhere close to the size of the gun community. I remember seeing the number of 4,100,000 on the nightly news a few nights ago, talking about NRA membership.
About that knife scenario, you aren't talking about defending yourself with a butterknife are you? Because knives aren't made with the purpose of taking lives, right?
Knife is no longer manufactured with the intention of being used as a weapon ever since the widespread usage of guns
Luckily the steak knife is as useful as the combat knife in the purpose of self-defense.
Now lets talk about your major point, as you yourself expressed it. Tools serve to aid daily life, and a gun is not a tool because its sole purpose is to take lives. I would like to argue that it isn't the sole purpose of the gun but we will move on for now.
You made the concession that tools are sometimes misused to kill people or commit crime. The view of most pro-gun advocates is that guns are being misused when shot at other humans. I would like to bring up some statistics for your viewing pleasure.
According to the [self=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm]CDC website[/self], there were 11,493 gun homicides in the United States in 2009
According to a pro-gun website [self=http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states]Gun Policy[/self], there are about 27,000,000 million firearms in the United States.
Bear with me, this is only the number of registered firearms in the United States. This doesn't include family heirlooms, or illegally owned firearms.
11,493/27,000,000=0.0004 ect.
For every 2,499 firearms in the United States, there is 1 homicide. That means there is a less than 0.001% rate of firearm misuse in the United States for homicide. The people committing the crimes involving firearms are a staggeringly small minority. Whether you view guns as a tool or not, the HUGE majority of gun owners are law abiding and do not commit crimes using firearms. These people are responsible firearm owners. Is it fair to punish a huge majority because less than 1% of the population is doing something wrong?
Guns may not be tools in the eyes of some, but that doesn't mean they aren't being used responsibily.
In response to other ad hominem attacks, I don't give a shit, nor do I care if they effect peoples view of me. You painted yourself as a foreigner. In order to make your testimony more convincing you should've painted yourself as someone with experience both living inside and outside the U.S., as it would have given us a broader perspective. And I will use profanity as much as I like, it's my fucking constitutional right.
)
