Guns

[Sketcher]

First you said this:

Generally speaking, I don't like guns. The only reason why I like them is for protection. I would never own one, but I am glad that police have them to protect us.

I would only ever use a gun if an animal (a big one) or a person was attacking me.

Then you said this:

So many things can and do happen. That's why I believe they should only be used by the police/army for protection. Not for the common household.

I fail to see the consistency.

I'm not sure I like the fact that any person can own a gun. But it's impossible to screen people to see who will use it properly, who won't, and who will shoot someone by accident. You can't tell. There are many out there who are dangerous, and will use guns to purposely kill people. They have a "right" to. (not to kill people, but to own a gun) Where do you draw the line? It has to be all or nothing. I'd rather no one owned one, but that's my personal opinion.

One can say the same thing about kitchen knives, baseball bats, or common garage tools. The cashier at the store could be selling them a legitimate customer or a psychopath. There's no way to tell. Or how about fertilizer and other household chemicals. They can be used to make bombs, and have been.

Sure you can say that our own body parts can kill people, but they are not MEANT for that purpose. Guns are meant for that purpose. Guns are more powerful and much more threatening than body parts. There is a huge difference. Especially if one is pointed at you. What will you do, strangle them? It is not a fair "fight". You cannot compare your body parts with a gun.

Actually, body parts can do comparable harm to a person when used improperly, in cases such as rape. That's a special kind of trauma, it's psychologically worse than just getting shot in the shoulder. Oh, and if someone pointed a gun at me, I would pray, and then shoot them. Concealed carry FTW.

Think of all the possible scenarios that can happen. A person is in touble. They need to use the phone so they come to the nearest house, your house. You see a person walking on your property, and there's mixed messages, and you shoot them.

Or, you are told you will be home alone. Then your dad comes home at an odd time. You think it's a burglar, and you shoot him.

Most normal people would answer the door first. You don't seem acquainted with gun culture and how careful the majority of gun owners are with the use of their guns.

 

[Blackguard_]

Not everyone can stay calm and do the right thing.

and not everyone panics either. There's no shortage of stories mere commoners being calm enough to use guns to defend themselves.

No one means to shoot innocent people.

How do you screen and not give guns to non "Jack...'s"?

Banning places like Wal-mart from selling guns. Real gun store workers are much less likley to sell to obvious jackasses, not to mention shady characters.

There is no way of telling. Just like you can't tell who will steal or not.

Actually, with guns its quite a bit more obvious. For example, if a clerk hands a customer a gun to look at, a jackass will do things like keep his finger on the trigger and point it at people, sideways, and make dumb "bad-ass" comments.

Profiling at work.

Some places require everyone to leave their bags at the door. But I'm not a theif. It's all or nothing, right?

No, they could profile you.

No, I'm not against commoners having to vote, I'm talking about guns. You can take anything and stretch it to suit your arguement. A country is a country. A gun is a gun. Lets stick to talking about guns. Not sure how that fit in.

Both have to do with responsibility. If someone can;t be trusted with a simple machine and basic safety rules, why should they be trusted with infinitely more complicated political ideas and the COnstitution (in the case of the USA)?

 

[Blank123]

IMHO banning guns is a pointless endeavour - the black market exists to get around such laws so all you'd be doing is taking the guns out of the hands of honest citizens and those who are determined to have a gun wouldn't be bothered at all.

 

[sweetlambofgod]

guns=bad

 

[Suomipoika]

This is a question to which I don't have an absolute opinion, all I can say is that societies where people don't carry guns freely are *not* less safe on the average than societies where they do. But there are certainly more reasons to (weaponed) crime developing and happening than the question of whether one is allowed to own a gun. Need a little more thinking on this.

 

[nill]

Some food for thought:

Your opinion on any thing is determined probably on the particular use and design of it.

For instance, if there were a drug released whose sole purpose was to target human DNA and destroy it (I think that was even a plot of a sci-fi show's episode), you, as a human, would have to be insane to not be against it. That's what the drug does.

Now, what does a gun do? What is its design and use? It creates a miniature explosion to fire a projectile at a high speed. When someone asks you, "What is a gun," that is the correct answer. The incorrect, politically-biased answer is, "Something that kills people." You could say the same thing about cars and animals and water. Should we ban all those things, too? No, because the intended design is not for killing people--neither is that the case for guns. Guns are tools that fire projectiles.

Over the years, then, these "firing projectile tools" have been tools for training people to hone their eyesight, reflexes, and coordination. These have taken place in the form of competitive games, even, shooting at moving targets to see whose aim is more accurate.

Civilians should be allowed to enjoy the same sport. Because they are not wielding human death rays. They are wielding tools.

Now, if it ever comes to a human with a gun who decides to use it on another human, this is where I absolutely oppose gun control. This would, in effect, allow only those people who are lawbreakers to have the upper hand, carrying a weapon, while the law-abiding citizens are allowed no such weapon. While I oppose gun control, I encourage gun safety and gun training. The reason being this: if you know how to use this tool properly, and you are proficient at handling it, you won't kill anybody, even the people who are trying to kill you. You would know where to shoot and how to shoot non-lethally so that your attacker is momentarily incapacitated enough that you can subdue him or her in a safe way, while you wait for the police to arrive and arrest the criminal. If you can buy your gun and have no idea how to use it, then yeah, you're gonna get trigger-happy idiots who have no clue that they're killing people. And psychologically, they'll pay for it, too.

Which is why it's all the better to allow these tools to remain legal, but just as you don't let anybody operate a forklift with no training, you don't let people operate a gun with no training. People become skilled in the use of a gun to know when it's appropriate to shoot where, not to become trigger-happy maniacs.

 

[TwistTim]

guns=bad

Proof? why do you feel that way? and how can you show me that your view is right? what is your line of reasoning to come to this conclusion?

I think guns are tools, and like any tool, they can be used for good or for harm... .take computers, the let you do many great things, but thanks to the dark net, they let anyone access porn.... should we therefore ban computers from everyone's home? no...

how about knife's, which can cut bread or cut flesh? do you want those banned also? I don't desire that to happen

guns, like other tools are amoral (meaning they in and of themselves lack a moral direction of being either good or bad), it is what is done with them, that shows not their morality, but the wielders....

as has been pointed out, man is the only natural pedator to the deer, also to the wolverine, the lion, and some other animals, would you like to have human populations all over the world overrun with animals because guns get banned?

Or worse, let's say we take guns out of the hands of all the civilians, only three groups would have that power then.... Military, Police, and Criminals who hid their guns.....

that would mean you'd be saved totally at the whim of those with guns from those with guns.....it would also mean a police state where you are controlled by another would be that much easier.....which is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights as they did.... so that you the indiviual could have freedom to overthrow the government if it got to big for it's britches and was causing it's citizen's greater harm than good(there are good reasons to revolt and bad ones too, research that, and form your opionion elsewhere, this isn't the right thread for that topic).....anyways, if the gov't did get to big, you'd be able to oppose it and take it down so you can set up one that does work better....

Where do I draw my opionions from? from reading or listening to: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Rush and David Limbaugh, Chuck Norris, Sean Hannity, the NRA and others....mainly from myself thinking critically for myself....

By the way, Jesus was not in favor of just rolling over to whoever had power... the expression "if someone slaps you, turn to them the other check" was passive agression.... it meant if they were to slap you again, they'd have to treat you as an equal, or back away.... as the check you were slapped on denoted weather you were a lesser or an equal......

and in the Old Testament the Nation of Israel was constantly given a call to arms, and in the New Testament, we are told to be soliders for Christ, what solider goes to battle without weapons? I don't think the picture would be painted that way if were to just roll over and allow evil to transpire.....

just my .04 cents..... .02 for the first hour, .01 for ever extra hour spent crafting this message..... and since none of those applied, it was just .04 since I want some monies....

 

[Keenan]

I just finished writing an essay on gun control, and though I personally enjoy target shooting and have since I was young, there are some indisputable facts..

After the Dunblane Scotland school shooting the government banned handguns and enforced new gun control laws. Since then violent crime linked to firearms has spiked with a nearly two third increase.

Guns are a tool whether it be for violence, self preservation or sport. May as well ban knives while we're at it.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

My grandpa is a gun fanatic. His house is full of them. He has taken me and my cousins to the shooting range and taught how to treat them properly and with respect.

I currently carry pepper spray and a knife. My grandpa is giving me one of his guns when I move into my apartment.

My area isn't the safest place to be. Just the other week a man was shot in a robbery (by the thief) in an apartment building I was considering moving into.

In an emergency, I won't have the luxury of time. The police that are "officially" trained to use guns won't get there in time. I won't always have time to run and hide. It might even be up to me to protect someone else’s life as well as mine. As long as criminals use these tools, why shouldn't I? Am I to face an armed rapist with my fists because some people don't know how to treat weapons with respect?

Guns put potential victims on the same level of power as the attacker. That is a reality women have to face--most of us without martial training aren't physically capable of overpowering an attacker using brute force alone. I've been taught by my grandpa how to respect weapons, and I've learned how to fight and keep a level head in martial training. I would also be one to march down Washington if new laws tried to take those tools away from me. Until they take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and rapists, I'll use the same tools to protect myself.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

Now, if it ever comes to a human with a gun who decides to use it on another human, this is where I absolutely oppose gun control. This would, in effect, allow only those people who are lawbreakers to have the upper hand, carrying a weapon, while the law-abiding citizens are allowed no such weapon.

Exactly. Clearly more laws won't do anything, because criminal have already shown they don't have any problems breaking the law. It would only serve to put law abiding citizens at risk, because they would have to become like criminals to use weapons for self defense.

 

[Tuffguy]

It was stated in another thread that "Guns are Immoral" but not explained why or given reason. Discuss your thoughts, the discussion also includes Gun Control and your thoughts of how far it should extend if at all.

Guns are for killing. Killing is not immoral if under the right circumestances.

Anyone else that can't see that has a serious problem with logic.

They also need to seriously consider the severe ramifications of an unarmmed population. That is perhaps the biggest reason for arms. For the citizens to defend against the government.

 

[sweetlambofgod]

Proof? why do you feel that way? and how can you show me that your view is right? what is your line of reasoning to come to this conclusion?

I think guns are tools, and like any tool, they can be used for good or for harm... .take computers, the let you do many great things, but thanks to the dark net, they let anyone access porn.... should we therefore ban computers from everyone's home? no...

how about knife's, which can cut bread or cut flesh? do you want those banned also? I don't desire that to happen

guns, like other tools are amoral (meaning they in and of themselves lack a moral direction of being either good or bad), it is what is done with them, that shows not their morality, but the wielders....

as has been pointed out, man is the only natural pedator to the deer, also to the wolverine, the lion, and some other animals, would you like to have human populations all over the world overrun with animals because guns get banned?

Or worse, let's say we take guns out of the hands of all the civilians, only three groups would have that power then.... Military, Police, and Criminals who hid their guns.....

that would mean you'd be saved totally at the whim of those with guns from those with guns.....it would also mean a police state where you are controlled by another would be that much easier.....which is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights as they did.... so that you the indiviual could have freedom to overthrow the government if it got to big for it's britches and was causing it's citizen's greater harm than good(there are good reasons to revolt and bad ones too, research that, and form your opionion elsewhere, this isn't the right thread for that topic).....anyways, if the gov't did get to big, you'd be able to oppose it and take it down so you can set up one that does work better....

Where do I draw my opionions from? from reading or listening to: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Rush and David Limbaugh, Chuck Norris, Sean Hannity, the NRA and others....mainly from myself thinking critically for myself....

By the way, Jesus was not in favor of just rolling over to whoever had power... the expression "if someone slaps you, turn to them the other check" was passive agression.... it meant if they were to slap you again, they'd have to treat you as an equal, or back away.... as the check you were slapped on denoted weather you were a lesser or an equal......

and in the Old Testament the Nation of Israel was constantly given a call to arms, and in the New Testament, we are told to be soliders for Christ, what solider goes to battle without weapons? I don't think the picture would be painted that way if were to just roll over and allow evil to transpire.....

just my .04 cents..... .02 for the first hour, .01 for ever extra hour spent crafting this message..... and since none of those applied, it was just .04 since I want some monies....

how are they good?

 

[Blackguard_]

how are they good?

He never said they were good, he said they could be used for good or evil. He specifically said they are amoral.

As for good uses of guns, how about self defense? Why do you think cops have them? Even the "unarmed" English cops have them, (they just don't carry them around).

Don't tell me you beleive killing in self defense or of others is wrong?

How about controlling animal populations? AS pointed out, hunting season often has sport as a secondary goal.

 

[CroCop]

Okay, guns are both good and bad. That is a no brainer.

Guns have been used by countries to project itself from invasion or tyranny. They are also used by our Police forces to protect the safety of citizens. The downside, it kinda sucks when guns can be handed to anyone at will, which leads to innocent people dead and so on.

Okay--enough of that. I have a bone to pick. I am calling out EVERYONE who has used "guns are the same as knives" arguement in their defense of guns. First of all, I am not standing on this issue for or against. So that is eliminated right off the bat.

Now, to say a gun is the same as a knife or as someone else said bare hands, etc, is the most B.S statement alive. You can be for something all you want but to make a statement as such is downright mad. To you wonderful people, tell me, who do you have a better chance off staying alive: some man in a parking lot with a pocket knife or another man with a gun pointed directly at your heart. With which man do you have the better position to either a) run, b) have enough time to blink or c) even attempt to disarm him. If you believe there is no difference then gladly put yourself in that situation if your so confident in this belief--or else stop talking nonsense.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

Okay, guns are both good and bad. That is a no brainer.

Guns have been used by countries to project itself from invasion or tyranny. They are also used by our Police forces to protect the safety of citizens. The downside, it kinda sucks when guns can be handed to anyone at will, which leads to innocent people dead and so on.

Okay--enough of that. I have a bone to pick. I am calling out EVERYONE who has used "guns are the same as knives" arguement in their defense of guns. First of all, I am not standing on this issue for or against. So that is eliminated right off the bat.

Now, to say a gun is the same as a knife or as someone else said bare hands, etc, is the most B.S statement alive. You can be for something all you want but to make a statement as such is downright mad. To you wonderful people, tell me, who do you have a better chance off staying alive: some man in a parking lot with a pocket knife or another man with a gun pointed directly at your heart. With which man do you have the better position to either a) run, b) have enough time to blink or c) even attempt to disarm him. If you believe there is no difference then gladly put yourself in that situation if your so confident in this belief--or else stop talking nonsense.

I think the "guns are the same as knives" statement is trying to demonstrate the absurdity of banning something simply because of one possible outcome. For example, someone might say "guns should be banned because kids can find them and hurt themselves," and someone might use the gun/knife analogy to say "that doesn't make sense. Should we be banning knives and frying pans because someone could hurt themselves accidentally?"

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

I think that guns have a use, but not in the houses of people who live in cities. If one is in the country, on a farm etc. and there is game around and/or wolves, bears, mountain lions etc. then by all means go for it - in a safe environment with proper control. Yet in the city, there is no need for guns outside of the law enforcement establishments.

 

[Sketcher]

To you wonderful people, tell me, who do you have a better chance off staying alive: some man in a parking lot with a pocket knife or another man with a gun pointed directly at your heart. With which man do you have the better position to either a) run, b) have enough time to blink or c) even attempt to disarm him.

a) For me, neither because I am not a fast runner.

b) Does not matter if he has you where he wants you.

c) Neither. You need special training to even have half a chance of disarming someone with a knife, and chances are one of you will be dead and the other will be going to the hospital.

What we're trying to say is it's ridiculous to try to ban one kind of murder weapon when most people wouldn't consider banning another.

 

[CroCop]

I think the "guns are the same as knives" statement is trying to demonstrate the absurdity of banning something simply because of one possible outcome. For example, someone might say "guns should be banned because kids can find them and hurt themselves," and someone might use the gun/knife analogy to say "that doesn't make sense. Should we be banning knives and frying pans because someone could hurt themselves accidentally?"

Demonstration or not, its absurd to counter something you consider absurd with something equally absurd. Yes, X can kill you if they don't like you with their bare hands or they can blow someone's brains out with a gun. Fine. But when it comes down to someone saying there is no difference between a gun or a baseball bat they are obviously living in a wonderful fantasy world where disarming someone with a gun only takes a "Excuse me sir, I am just going to walk away from that gun pointed to my head and continue on with the rest of my life, thank you".

 

[Sketcher]

I think that guns have a use, but not in the houses of people who live in cities. If one is in the country, on a farm etc. and there is game around and/or wolves, bears, mountain lions etc. then by all means go for it - in a safe environment with proper control. Yet in the city, there is no need for guns outside of the law enforcement establishments.

Because nobody ever gets held up or their homes broken into in the city, right?

 

[Blackguard_]

They are also used by our Police forces to protect the safety of citizens.

maybe the cops are different over there, but here they don't play bodyguard. Sure, they'll help you if you call them, but it's going to be a loooooong wait.

The downside, it kinda sucks when guns can be handed to anyone at will, which leads to innocent people dead and so on.

Pro-gun types would argue the opposite, citing the effectivness of guns in self defense (it's not an NRA fantasy, private citizens have stopped crimes with guns).
(althouhg I'm not going to make the numbers argument, I don't think it's relevant and studies exist vindicating both sides)

Now, to say a gun is the same as a knife or as someone else said bare hands, etc, is the most B.S statement alive. You can be for something all you want but to make a statement as such is downright mad.

Right, guns are different than knives. That is why what you will now say is wrong...

To you wonderful people, tell me, who do you have a better chance off staying alive: some man in a parking lot with a pocket knife or another man with a gun pointed directly at your heart. With which man do you have the better position to either a) run, b) have enough time to blink or c) even attempt to disarm him. If you believe there is no difference then gladly put yourself in that situation if your so confident in this belief--or else stop talking nonsense.

Obviously, I'd rather face the lone knife, but as others have said, your only realistic hope is running. Trying to fight/disarm a guy with a knife without a lot of trying is a good way to get cut to ribbons. But why would you want to face the knife unarmed? That's whats mad.

What if there are two or three guys with knives? Do you really want to rely on your physical condition to defeat or outrun every potential criminal? You're screwed if the knife-guy is stronger than you and/or has accomplices.

I'd rather face a gun with a gun than a knife with a knife, fists, etc.

Are you a big strong MMA knife-fighter type something? Not all of us are.

Women are pretty screwed in your system.