Moderator: phpBB2 - Administrators
LibraLabRat wrote:SpisBoy wrote:Personally, I don't like guns. I see no reason for anyone to have a gun. When I think of people who want guns, I think of vigilante trigger-happy rednecks. Also I have never understood people who enjoy shooting things. I think gun rights are sort of outdated.
However, I understand that even though other people have different ideas than me, they have rights I should respect. Therefore, it should be legal to own guns as long as people have to get a permit and prove their responsibility.
Do you have to "prove your responsibility" to own a car? Not really, or there would not be about a hundred times more people getting killed from car accidents every year than from guns.
Gun crimes are committed by criminals. So the solution is better crime control, not more gun control.
As for the statement that guns should be as hard to get as cars, I'm curious as to the number of people killed by guns vs. cars. I'd only be willing to agree with that if its much higher for guns.
dukes wrote:That's a good question, but I'd like to ask it a bit differently.
What is the number of people killed by motorists who actually have a legitimate purpose for using a car, compared to the number of people killed by gun users who actually have a legitimate purpose for using a gun?
Capellini wrote:But the sole purpose of a car is not to kill someone. A car is a tool, a gun is a weapon.
Capellini wrote:Emotional blather my ass. A gun is designed to shoot someone. That is its job. I can kill someone with a hammer, but that is not what it's designed to do. Hammers are for driving nails, cars are for personal transportation, and guns are for shooting people. Anything that's SOLE PURPOSE is to HARM another HUMAN BEING should have a HIGHER DEGREE of regulation than something that's SOLE PURPOSE is something OTHER than HARMING another HUMAN BEING.
If that isn't obvious, we don't agree on the basic value of human life.
Capellini wrote: we don't agree on the basic value of human life.
LibraLabRat wrote:A gun is a tool. It is made of metal, and wood. It has a purpose. I can kill someone very easily with a claw hammer, or a brick, or a sharpened stick.....
PyreDruid wrote:And in the country, I'd rather see the goverment spend money to stop the criminals from getting them, then stopping regular people.
anon1mat0 wrote:Beyond liking or not firearms, isn't the purpose of the amendment to have a way to succesfully defend the population from tyranny be it internal or external?
Even in guerrilla warfare, and as an example, aren't IEDs in Irak the more successful weapon of the insurgency? If I want to do something about an Abrahams tank isn't a AK-47 as useful as spit? Or against an armored chopper (if I had to face an UH chopper I might try something like throwing an steel mesh to the tail rottor, for example)? Does this means that people should have large amount of explosives or heat seeking rockets for such an event?
IMO, conventional weapons are relatively easy to counteract, the improvised ones OTOH seem to be far more effective for that purpose.
In the end all those techniques are useful if the enemy has some respect for civilian populations if not there is no use against cluster bombs.
I guess what I want to say is that you may keep your guns if that makes you happy but in the event of the kind of war the amendment was written for, training and communications are waaaaay more important.
And luck, lots of it.
Capellini wrote:Anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar with a handgun is an idiot.
Please, treat me like an idiot, and tell me what other rational purpose a gun has other than shooting something? And, keep in mind, I already said anyone who wants to shoot a wild boar (or a deer, a wolf, a pheasant, a quail) with a handgun is an idiot. Handguns are for shooting people.
*Praying someone mentions pistol whipping. Oh pretty please.
Users browsing this forum: MiltonOa and 2 guests