Do You Own a Gun?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

This, gay marriage laws, pro-lifers, dress code laws for kids (yes, some towns have them), PMRC, the FCC's bullshit, etc, etc, etc... is all the same bullshit.
Some people believe they are better than others and they should be able to tell their neighbors how to live their life, what they should be able to do and what they should not be able to do, what they should be able to say and what they should not be able to say.
They will swear they do not want one while doing their damnedest to implement an oligarchy, theocracy or other form of oppressive, nanny, government.
This mindset is AFRAID of freedom or it resents anyone who thinks differently than they do. Honestly that is cool, as long as one does nothing about it... but these people try to change legislation to inhibit others from expressing alternate thoughts.
They don't like freedom.
I have said it before.
Freedom means that you must contend with other's ideas and actions as expressions of their freedom, just like you will.
What these people hate more than anything are those who do not agree with them... they cannot handle freedom, because freedom is not about them, it is about everyone.
We have seen it in here. People who cannot handle something as simple as someone disagreeing with them. In a free society it is simple, if you don't like a TV program, you don't watch it; if you don't like a radio station, you don't listen to it; if you don't like a certain type of film, don't go and if you don't like guns, you just don't buy one.

I agree with some of this and disagree with others.

First of all, it is stupid for people to think they know how to control other people's lives or tell people how to live "the right way", because there isn't a single way. That goes for both ways. Some societies can function perfectly with guns and some can function perfectly without guns.

Yes, a lot of talk on gun control is about controlling other people but a lot of it is also safety. We should be able to protect yourself but you can't just own something because you can. I can't own a nuke because 50 million other lives should not be put in danger because I am on a power trip and are pathetically attempting to justify it by saying I should be able to own it because I can.

I am very strongly against total gun control but there are limits. You have every right (as much as I hate saying someone has rights) to protect yourself but there is a limit. Owning a rocket launcher has nothing to do with protection unless you are planning on protecting yourself against an armored vehicle which is ludicrous. You don't need an automatic weapon to protect yourself, you just need a pistol or a rifle and a few good shots.

When it comes to personal items that are made to kill another animal, you should only use what you need. To go above that level is a display of power, which is just as bad as gun control.

We have seen it in here. People who cannot handle something as simple as someone disagreeing with them. In a free society it is simple, if you don't like a TV program, you don't watch it; if you don't like a radio station, you don't listen to it; if you don't like a certain type of film, don't go and if you don't like guns, you just don't buy one.

You are missing the point. I am not scared of guns and I don't want some banned and regulated because I don't like them. A TV program can not kill someone, a radio station can not kill someone, a film can not kill someone, a gun can kill someone. Take drunk driving for example. You can say, if you don't like drunk driving then don't do it, but by you drinking and driving you are putting everyone else's life in danger. Some people can handle drinking and driving and some can't, which is why we have a law. Some people can handle guns in a safe manner and some can't, that is why we have regulations.

Driving is not a protected right, gun ownership is. Many things can kill, chainsaws, knives, baseball bats... The regulations you are talking about for guns are already in place. In may area, far too many.
If regular citizens don't need automatic weapons, neither do the police. You made an excellent argument there... however I am getting my class 3 license.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Driving is not a protected right, gun ownership is. Many things can kill, chainsaws, knives, baseball bats... The regulations you are talking about for guns are already in place. In may area, far too many.

Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats can kill, but just because something has the potential to kill doesn't mean that it has to be banned. If an item proves to be used in many killings whether intentional or unintentional, looking into regulations and banning may be necessary for that particular society to function more efficiently. If only one person died from drunk driving a year it wouldn't have been banned even if it posed the same threat to other drivers. If there was only one gun death a year, there would be no talk about it.

Intentions also have a part in it. Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats are made for other purposes other than killing.

So are guns.

[piercehawkeye45]

I said "made for".

Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I said "made for".

Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.

I have seen and owned many guns that were made solely for the purpose of:
art
being a collectible item
target shooting, both competitive and hobby
skeet shooting
cross country skiing completions
and others
You have no idea of what you speak.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have seen and owned many guns that were made solely for the purpose of:
art
being a collectible item
target shooting, both competitive and hobby
skeet shooting
cross country skiing completions
and others
You have no idea of what you speak.

I have no idea what I speak? Maybe you should try to understand what I say before you rant on something I am not talking about.

I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I have no idea what I speak? . . .
I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.

I can tell right now where your difficulty lies: you're denying that it is possible to kill rightly, in defense of self or other. That something is lethal, whether gun, sword, or big wet rock, merely suits it to the task, however onerous and troublesome that task may be. But then, it's definitely troublesome to get murdered. And one must never deny that we've the right to self-defense by any means whatsoever -- for to try and put a lid on self-defense only opens up the way for crimes not only by evilly disposed individuals -- as in England-- but by evilly-disposed states like Nazi Germany and the People's Democratic Republic of Kampuchea. Such states present a very large problem, and both their flourishing and their ending are immensely destructive. Germany was left a pile of broken brick, Pol Pot's Kampuchea a ghost town.

In a good many countries, a highly-motivated, well-organized sociopath can go very far -- particularly in countries that are not democracies. The problem with such places is that a sociopathic head of state ends up heading up a sociopathic state. Then you get Amin's Uganda and Saddam's Iraq.

I say humanity does not have to put up with such monsters, and should uniformly hunt them down and kill them off, but I see I digress from the focus of the thread. Nonetheless, there is a simple and clear continuity between what begins this post and where it ends.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I have no idea what I speak? Maybe you should try to understand what I say before you rant on something I am not talking about.

I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.

PHE - (sorry if this has already been discussed - I've skipped around in this thread a bit) - Why do police (in the US) carry guns? Their stated mission is, generally, "to serve and protect."

I'm not taking a side in this debate, but just looking for a different perspective.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by HLJ

PHE - (sorry if this has already been discussed - I've skipped around in this thread a bit) - Why do police (in the US) carry guns? Their stated mission is, generally, "to serve and protect."

I'm not taking a side in this debate, but just looking for a different perspective.

They carry guns so they can kill if they feel threatened. If they shoot their gun they are told to kill.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I said "made for".

Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.

Guns are made for lots of things and not all of them are killing. In fact killing isn't even the main reason guns are made. Those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.

[Radar]

The knife (and in fact all sharp blades) were made for both killing (hunting) and for food preparation. The first knives were made from sharp rocks. Only later were blades used for other things like cutting down trees. This is where the chainsaw came from.

The baseball bat is a modern version of the club which also goes back to caveman days and was also used for the killing of animals, and other cavemen.

Cars were meant for transportation, but like the knife, and the bat, and the gun, it can be made into a weapon. There is no inanimate object that is inherently made for killing. Nuclear weapons weren't even made for killing. They were made for defending, and for letting others know they shouldn't attack us. Nuclear weapons, guns, and all weapons have a main purpose and that purpose is to PREVENT killing by giving us a means to defend ourselves and hopefully scare off would-be attackers.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Radar

Guns are made for lots of things and not all of them are killing. ...

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You forgot the other part of what I said...

Originally Posted by Radar

Those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.

Actually in your case, you're not only ignorant, willfully stupid, and pathological liar, you also have the added bonus of being an asshole.

[Happy Monkey]

If a gun were made that could do everything it can currently do other than killing, would that be an improvement?

The answer is yes for chainsaws, knives, baseball bats, and cars.