Quoting:
I don't have a problem with large guns, you know, the ones you can't hide in your pocket as you enter a jewelry store. I believe handguns, automatic weapons, and high-powered sniper rifles should not be in the hands of the public.

Answer this one if you can: Why are M-80 fireworks (capable of blowing fingers off) illegal, while handguns (capable of sending you to meet your maker) are perfectly legal?
End Quote

Big or small gun, I wouldn't want to be around a person who has one! I was worried when a person took a small air pistol with ball-bearings to work with him because he happened to have bought it on the way.  :-/

Quoting:
I don't have a problem with large guns, you know, the ones you can't hide in your pocket as you enter a jewelry store. I believe handguns, automatic weapons, and high-powered sniper rifles should not be in the hands of the public.

Answer this one if you can: Why are M-80 fireworks (capable of blowing fingers off) illegal, while handguns (capable of sending you to meet your maker) are perfectly legal?
End Quote

Somebody owning a gun or an M-80 doesn’t bother me; it’s the point at which they endanger others I have a problem with.  There’s a principle called “natural rights”, which basically states that people are born with essentially unlimited freedom--limited only by the fact that all the other people around you are also born with that freedom-- and that you have the right to do as you like as long as you don’t interfere with the rights of others.  So if I don’t like guns, for example, but I do like the right to smoke crack, I would be okay with someone owning a gun--as long as they didn’t point it at me--in exchange for their willingness to tolerate my habit as long as I didn’t blow my smoke on them.  It would alleviate a lot of problems if more people would realize this, stop trying to outlaw everything they dislike, and allow the police to focus on the behavior that really infringes on the rights of others.  But what we have on both ends of the political spectrum is utter contempt for natural rights (the foundation of the US gov’t, btw) and a neverending attempt by everyone to eliminate each other’s rights until none will be left.  
Meanwhile violent criminals run rampant because it’s much easier for the police to go after drug dealers or prostitutes than people who are actually hurting others.  

Quoting:


Somebody owning a gun or an M-80 doesn’t bother me; it’s the point at which they endanger others I have a problem with.  There’s a principle called “natural rights”, which basically states that people are born with essentially unlimited freedom--limited only by the fact that all the other people around you are also born with that freedom-- and that you have the right to do as you like as long as you don’t interfere with the rights of others.  So if I don’t like guns, for example, but I do like the right to smoke crack, I would be okay with someone owning a gun--as long as they didn’t point it at me--in exchange for their willingness to tolerate my habit as long as I didn’t blow my smoke on them.  It would alleviate a lot of problems if more people would realize this, stop trying to outlaw everything they dislike, and allow the police to focus on the behavior that really infringes on the rights of others.  But what we have on both ends of the political spectrum is utter contempt for natural rights (the foundation of the US gov’t, btw) and a neverending attempt by everyone to eliminate each other’s rights until none will be left.  
Meanwhile violent criminals run rampant because it’s much easier for the police to go after drug dealers or prostitutes than people who are actually hurting others.  
End Quote

Ah, the Libertarian jumps into the fray! So, by your logic, Saddam Hussein has a natural right to WMD's? Heck, do I have a right to own tactical nuclear weapons? Perhaps you should define the parameters of these natural rights?

Hopefully, we can get some more debate going on here!

Quoting:


 ...So if I don’t like guns, for example, but I do like the right to smoke crack, I would be okay with someone owning a gun--as long as they didn’t point it at me--in exchange for their willingness to tolerate my habit as long as I didn’t blow my smoke on them...  End Quote

And as long as you don't drive while high.

And as long as you aren't high on a job like putting together autos or some other product that may fall into my hands and kill me because of a defect that is there because you were high on the job.

And as long as you don't get fired from that job and go on welfare and then I have to pay for your sorry butt.

And as long as you don't try to sell it to school kids because you got fired and have to sell drugs to survive.

And as long as you don't go around robbing people or burglarizing their property because you can't afford your habit.

Did I miss anything?

Quoting:
I don't have a problem with large guns, you know, the ones you can't hide in your pocket as you enter a jewelry store. I believe handguns, automatic weapons, and high-powered sniper rifles should not be in the hands of the public.

Answer this one if you can: Why are M-80 fireworks (capable of blowing fingers off) illegal, while handguns (capable of sending you to meet your maker) are perfectly legal?
End Quote

John, this is a great debate and one that will continue to be debated in this country for years.  The problem with gun control is people that are legal to posess and law abiding are not the problem, they are however very resistant to change.  As I once wrote to fomer regular here and great guy Steve, to be sure to carefully remove my handgun from my cold, dead fingers since it may have a round in the chamber. ;)
Passing laws seems pretty ineffectual since the more laws passed on gun control means more laws are not enforced and even ignored.  For any real progress it is first important to enforce what is already on the books and sentence those who violate with a some hard time and big fines.  
Oh yeah, as far as banning weapons in the ol' USofA, not gonna happen.

Quoting:

Ah, the Libertarian jumps into the fray! So, by your logic, Saddam Hussein has a natural right to WMD's? Heck, do I have a right to own tactical nuclear weapons? Perhaps you should define the parameters of these natural rights?

Hopefully, we can get some more debate going on here!
End Quote

It’s not my job to “define the parameters” of someone else’s rights; that’s what the courts are for.  In the case of Hussein, you’d have a difficult time lately finding someone who thinks he should have access to things like oxygen, say, or his limbs.  As I mentioned, your rights are contingent upon your respect for the rights of those around you.  Someone who demonstrates violent contempt for those rights forfeits their own.  It’s the job of government to remove them from society, perhaps permanently.  By following this clear, consistent principle, you send a clear, consistent message:  Do as you like, but don’t mess with those who want nothing to do with you.  Focusing our limited resources on the act of the initiation of force, rather than those acts that offend the sensibilities of enough people, would greatly reduce the incidence of violent crime.  The exact point at which this force
occurs will vary from situation to situation, but the principle remains:   the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not to “own” them, and dole them out as your neighbors see fit.  The way it is now, anything goes if you can convince enough people; we’re no longer protected by the constitutional principle.  As a result, we have all kinds of crazy laws, and people can make an argument like “smoking should be illegal because we all have to pay your health care” and actually be taken seriously, when in a society of accountability, it wouldn’t even occur to anyone.

Quoting:

It’s not my job to “define the parameters” of someone else’s rights; that’s what the courts are for.  In the case of Hussein, you’d have a difficult time lately finding someone who thinks he should have access to things like oxygen, say, or his limbs.  As I mentioned, your rights are contingent upon your respect for the rights of those around you.  Someone who demonstrates violent contempt for those rights forfeits their own.  It’s the job of government to remove them from society, perhaps permanently.  By following this clear, consistent principle, you send a clear, consistent message:  Do as you like, but don’t mess with those who want nothing to do with you.  Focusing our limited resources on the act of the initiation of force, rather than those acts that offend the sensibilities of enough people, would greatly reduce the incidence of violent crime.  The exact point at which this force
occurs will vary from situation to situation, but the principle remains:   the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not to “own” them, and dole them out as your neighbors see fit.  The way it is now, anything goes if you can convince enough people; we’re no longer protected by the constitutional principle.  As a result, we have all kinds of crazy laws, and people can make an argument like “smoking should be illegal because we all have to pay your health care” and actually be taken seriously, when in a society of accountability, it wouldn’t even occur to anyone.
End Quote

So I could have nukes, just as long as I promised not to use them? What if I decided to use them? It would be a bit late to judge that I abused my natural rights to a weapon of horrible destruction.

Quoting:
And as long as you don't drive while high.

And as long as you aren't high on a job like putting together autos or some other product that may fall into my hands and kill me because of a defect that is there because you were high on the job.

And as long as you don't get fired from that job and go on welfare and then I have to pay for your sorry butt.

And as long as you don't try to sell it to school kids because you got fired and have to sell drugs to survive.

And as long as you don't go around robbing people or burglarizing their property because you can't afford your habit.

Did I miss anything?
End Quote

Yes - when are you going to outlaw alcohol?  Exactly the same logic applies: there should be no *legal* restriction for grown-ups on simply taking the drugs, but don't drive under the influence etc. etc.  But that's an argument for a different thread.

Must admit, I agree with Claude on pretty much every point: there's way too much control-freakery around.  To extrapolate ad absurdam to include nuclear weapons and WMDs is a bit silly, though.

As an aside, since the most draconian anti-gun legislation was passed here, crime using guns hasn't even diminished, it's still on the way up - even though the number of legal guns is a small fraction of what it was.  But what government is going to admit it was wrong and make a complete volte-face?

Phil

Quoting:

So I could have nukes, just as long as I promised not to use them? What if I decided to use them? It would be a bit late to judge that I abused my natural rights to a weapon of horrible destruction.
End Quote

Phil pretty much covered what I would have said, but let me make it clear:  A weapon of "mass destruction" would, in and of itself, naturally represent a threat your neighbors could not be expected to trust you with.  An extreme example; I assumed you'd reach that conclusion.  But on a smaller scale, yes, we can't try to ban every dangerous thing on the chance that someone will be careless with it.  There's no logical limit to what someone will consider "dangerous".

Quoting:
Like a lot of my posts, I know I have gone on for a while yet again.  But in serious topics like this, I believe they should be taken seriously.  And like any other Constitutional right, it is up to you if you choose to exercise it.  But please do not forbit others from their right just because you do not like the idea.End Quote

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound 'preachy'. I just know that it is safer not to be near a gun in the first place. Besides, what is constructive about having a gun?

Quoting:

Yes - when are you going to outlaw alcohol?  Exactly the same logic applies: there should be no *legal* restriction for grown-ups on simply taking the drugs, but don't drive under the influence etc. etc.  But that's an argument for a different thread.

Phil
End Quote

LOL...let's do it tomorrow!!  :P

I agree with what Mr 80's posted. I have never owned a gun (except for a pellet gun) but most of you who have posted seem to and you all sound very responsible in the handling of your firearms. I have no problem with private citizens owning and carrying guns.

Quoting:


I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound 'preachy'. I just know that it is safer not to be near a gun in the first place. Besides, what is constructive about having a gun?
End Quote

I ask, is it safe to go near a car?  More people die from car accidents than guns. You have chosen to think very narrowly addressing guns.  Of course they have the potential for death, even accidental or murderous, but they can be safe.  It's very simple, to be unsafe they have to be loaded, pointed, and trigger pulled at a target they are unitended for, or you are the victem of a crime with no way to defend yourself.
I am safe with guns, you believe you can't be so you choose to stay clear from them, that works too.

Quoting:
I ask, is it safe to go near a car?  More people die from car accidents than guns. You have chosen to think very narrowly addressing guns.  

I am safe with guns, you believe you can't be so you choose to stay clear from them, that works too.
End Quote

It may not be safe to drive a car but at least with a car you know that it has positive aspects (you can drive in it and get around) but with a gun I can't think of any.

I appreciate that more people get run over by a car but isn't that because more people have a car?

A person responsible with a gun is a good thing, Race. It's just that there are a lot of people who aren't.  :)

Quoting:


It may not be safe to drive a car but at least with a car you know that it has positive aspects (you can drive in it and get around) but with a gun I can't think of any.
End Quote

This is exactly the sort of arrogant contempt for the rights you don't happen to value that makes all government abuses possible:  "Since I can't think of a reason why you would need it, I see no reason to allow you to have it."  That may be an appropriate attitude to take with your children; but with your fellow citizens it's simply meddling.  I appreciate that some people are irresponsible, and feel that they--and only they--should absorb the consequences of their actions.  

Quoting:
This is exactly the sort of arrogant contempt for the rights you don't happen to value that makes all government abuses possible:  "Since I can't think of a reason why you would need it, I see no reason to allow you to have it."  That may be an appropriate attitude to take with your children; but with your fellow citizens it's simply meddling.  I appreciate that some people are irresponsible, and feel that they--and only they--should absorb the consequences of their actions.   End Quote

Whoa Claude. The sentence after I said that 'A man responsible with a gun is a good thing'. I'm trying to say that guns cause more harm than good whether they are a constitutional right or not.

Why call me arrogant because I believe that certain instruments, with no other use but to injure or, in a worst case scenario kill, are to be discouraged from using?

These are just my views. I have no intention of 'converting' people. I just feel this could be a case of 'Freedom to the point of injury'. Sorry you guys if you were offended.

Quoting:


Whoa Claude. The sentence after I said that 'A man responsible with a gun is a good thing'. I'm trying to say that guns cause more harm than good whether they are a constitutional right or not.

Why call me arrogant because I believe that certain instruments, with no other use but to injure or, in a worst case scenario kill, are to be discouraged from using?

These are just my views. I have no intention of 'converting' people. I just feel this could be a case of 'Freedom to the point of injury'. Sorry you guys if you were offended.
End Quote

I'm not entirely sure that he was calling you arrogant per se, he was calling the general attitude of "I don't like it, so you shouldn't have it" arrogant.

I think your views are being respected, Bobby.  Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands.  But I'd still like to be able to own one and I wouldn't take away that right from responsible individuals.

Quoting:
I'm not entirely sure that he was calling you arrogant per se, he was calling the general attitude of "I don't like it, so you shouldn't have it" arrogant.

I think your views are being respected, Bobby.  Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands.  But I'd still like to be able to own one and I wouldn't take away that right from responsible individuals.
End Quote

O.K  :)

Quoting:
The problem with responsible people owning guns is unresponsible indivigibles (call it a Bushism if you like) can get a hold of them when the responsible person is off being responsible away from his or her weapons cache. There are innumerable examples of kids getting a hold of guns legally owned by their parents and "causing problems" if you want to put it lightly.

Almost all examples of school yard gun violence, the guns used were owned legally by their parents.

I still say "If you can conceal it, use it to mow people down, or hit a small child from miles away, it should be illegal."
End Quote

If we have a highly publicized rash of kids burning down their schools, do we ban gasoline?  Of course not.  Why?  Because EVERYONE uses gas; EVERYONE drives cars; but not everyone values the right to own a gun.  So in the name of “safety”, they argue that they’re unnecessary and not worth the risk.  Because they don’t realize that when you ban things just because you personally don’t like them, there is literally no limit to what can be banned, and hence no limit to government power, which is exactly what our system was set up to avoid.  

Quoting:


Whoa Claude. The sentence after I said that 'A man responsible with a gun is a good thing'. I'm trying to say that guns cause more harm than good whether they are a constitutional right or not.

Why call me arrogant because I believe that certain instruments, with no other use but to injure or, in a worst case scenario kill, are to be discouraged from using?

These are just my views. I have no intention of 'converting' people. I just feel this could be a case of 'Freedom to the point of injury'. Sorry you guys if you were offended.
End Quote

Sorry if I came across a little harsh.  And I misunderstood; I have no problem with a private individual attempting to "discourage" other individuals from engaging in dangerous behavior.  My problem is the use of government to impose one's will.  Thanks.  (And thanks to Rice, too, for clearing it up earlier)

Quoting:

If we have a highly publicized rash of kids burning down their schools, do we ban gasoline?  Of course not.  Why?  Because EVERYONE uses gas; EVERYONE drives cars; but not everyone values the right to own a gun.  So in the name of “safety”, they argue that they’re unnecessary and not worth the risk.  Because they don’t realize that when you ban things just because you personally don’t like them, there is literally no limit to what can be banned, and hence no limit to government power, which is exactly what our system was set up to avoid.  


End Quote

Well, if apples were oranges, that might work. Gas is supposed to be used in cars to make them run to get us from point A to point B. Gas is not supposed to be used to burn down schools. Cars are not designed to be used for vehicular homicide. Handguns, however, are designed to be concealed. Automatic weapons are designed to mow down a whole bunch of people. Sniper rifles are designed to kill people from very very far away.

I hate to tell you, but even though people kill people, guns are designed to be used by those people to kill other people. What do guns do other than kill people? You can hit targets and hunt. Other than that, guns are simply a means to kill another human being. Don't say it's like a car. I never drove to school in a Glock (or however you spell it)

Quoting:
Sorry if I came across a little harsh.  And I misunderstood; I have no problem with a private individual attempting to "discourage" other individuals from engaging in dangerous behavior.  My problem is the use of government to impose one's will.  Thanks.  (And thanks to Rice, too, for clearing it up earlier)
End Quote

No probs, Claude.  :)

Quoting:

Well, if apples were oranges, that might work. Gas is supposed to be used in cars to make them run to get us from point A to point B. Gas is not supposed to be used to burn down schools. Cars are not designed to be used for vehicular homicide. Handguns, however, are designed to be concealed. Automatic weapons are designed to mow down a whole bunch of people. Sniper rifles are designed to kill people from very very far away.

I hate to tell you, but even though people kill people, guns are designed to be used by those people to kill other people. What do guns do other than kill people? You can hit targets and hunt. Other than that, guns are simply a means to kill another human being. Don't say it's like a car. I never drove to school in a Glock (or however you spell it)
End Quote

This was my point previously, John. You can use as many analogies as you like 'Well cars cause more deaths than guns . . .' Isn't this playing around with words?

I think the main problem here is perhaps, and I can only assume here, that we think on different levels. A lot of people think political 'It is my right to have a gun therefore I want one' and some people think social 'Constitutional right or not, if a gun is a bad thing in society and it serves no purpose but to kill, why have one?'.

Maybe If someone tried to change my mind about the uses of having a gun rather than tell me it is their constitutional right, I would respond a little less stubbornly. I don't argue to say 'Look I'm getting one up on you'. I am trying to challenge you by saying; 'Well, change my perspective. Make me think differently'.

Nobody for guns has done that yet.

Quoting:
The problem with responsible people owning guns is unresponsible indivigibles (call it a Bushism if you like) can get a hold of them when the responsible person is off being responsible away from his or her weapons cache. There are innumerable examples of kids getting a hold of guns legally owned by their parents and "causing problems" if you want to put it lightly.

Almost all examples of school yard gun violence, the guns used were owned legally by their parents.
End Quote

If a kid got ahold of a gun that way, the parents were not responsible.

I do own one pistol.  It has a trigger lock, and is kept in a lock box.  And yes my kids know where the box is.  In fact, they know that if they ever find the house burglarized, they are to look to see if the gun is where it belongs before they call the police.  If the gun safe is missing, they are to TELL the police that when they make the call.

My kids also know about gun safety.  I taught them about that starting from an early age.  And they also know that if they ever do want to go shooting, just ask me.  We will normally make the time to go shooting within 2 weeks.  This takes away the mystery of the gun, and the desire to sneak it away.

Quoting:
I still say "If you can conceal it, use it to mow people down, or hit a small child from miles away, it should be illegal."
End Quote

OK, are we talking about hand guns or semi-automatic rifles now?

Pistols have a range normally 25 yards and under.  They have a clip that is normally no more then 10-12 shots.  This is a concealable weapon.

If you want to mow down people, you need a semi-automatic rifle.  Those are 3-5 feet in length, and are hardly concealable (unless you are maybe Shaquille O'Neal.

Now very few rifles have a range of more then 500 yards, let alone "miles".  The Galil sniper rifle has a max range of just over 1 mile, and it is a .22 caliber bolt action rifle.  The current model of the M-16 has a range of 600 meters, the AK-47 about 400 meters.

The longest distance kill I know of was during Vietnam, when Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock killed a VC on a bicycle at a range of just over 1 mile.  He used a tripod mounted M-2 50 calibur machine gun (yes, he was firing in a "single shot" mode, he fired only 1 shot and got a hit).  At well over 150 lbs, that is hardly a "portable" weapon.

A lot of the fear about firearms is misunderstanding.  To me, a gun is little more then a tool.  I use it for sport, shooting holes in defenseless cans and paper targets.  It is a form of stress relief (there, take THAT you evil infomercial dude).

However, I would *NEVER* use it in any other way.  A gun is not a toy.  It is not something to be pulled out in an argument or if you are angry.  It is not to be played with.

But luckily, nothing that you said is possible in a single gun.  In fact, it is really not possible in ANY gun.  And for that I also am grateful.

But I still wonder at people that blame the tool instead of the person that used the tool.  I could kill people with a pool stick, but I do not hear about poolstick control.  In LA recently an old driver killed 10 people with his car.  OJ was able to kill 2 people with a knife.  I am sure that drugs kill far more people every year then guns do.

Quoting:
A lot of the fear about firearms is misunderstanding.  To me, a gun is little more then a tool.  I use it for sport, shooting holes in defenseless cans and paper targets.  It is a form of stress relief (there, take THAT you evil infomercial dude).

However, I would *NEVER* use it in any other way.  A gun is not a toy.  It is not something to be pulled out in an argument or if you are angry.  It is not to be played with.
End Quote

I understand that you can kill very easily with a firearm and that is what creates the fear.  :)

Aside, your purpose for a gun is fine. I would have thought it was an expensive hobby just to shoot holes in cans and things but I sort of understand though.

Quoting:
I understand that you can kill very easily with a firearm and that is what creates the fear.  :)
End Quote

I can also kill with a baseball bat, a knife, an electrical cord (strangle or electrocute), a car, or many other things.  It is not the tool that kills the person, but the person that handles the tool.

Some people can kill just as easily with their bare hands.  But I do not go around fearing them.

Quoting:
Aside, your purpose for a gun is fine. I would have thought it was an expensive hobby just to shoot holes in cans and things but I sort of understand though.
End Quote

Actually, it is a very affordable hobby.  You can get a .380 calibur pistol for around $150.  A .22 calibur rifle like the Ruger 10/22 costs about the same amount.

Add ammunition, $5-15 dollars for 50 rounds, and it is not all that much.  I have had in the past much more expensive hobbies, like Skiing, SCUBA diving, and now my computers.  :)

Shooting is also good for concentration and coordination.  I spent 3 years working on the rifle and pistol range when I was in the military.  And in that time, with probably 20-150 people shooting an average of 50-500 rounds every day, we NEVER had a firearm related injury.

If guns were so dangerous, you would expect the people that use them as a job requirement would have a lot of injuries.  But in both Military and Law Enforcement, the rate is actually VERY low.  This is because both are given training on how to handle them, and never treat them as toys.

The only person I know of in 10 years active duty that was killed or injured by a gun was a guy that comitted suicide.  And I do not count that.  There are so many other ways to commit suicide.  He happened to be doing his annual qualification at the time, and had several crisis at once (both his marriage ended and he was diagnosed with cancer).

Quoting:
OK, are we talking about hand guns or semi-automatic rifles now?

Pistols have a range normally 25 yards and under.  They have a clip that is normally no more then 10-12 shots.  This is a concealable weapon.

If you want to mow down people, you need a semi-automatic rifle.  Those are 3-5 feet in length, and are hardly concealable (unless you are maybe Shaquille O'Neal.

Now very few rifles have a range of more then 500 yards, let alone "miles".  The Galil sniper rifle has a max range of just over 1 mile, and it is a .22 caliber bolt action rifle.  The current model of the M-16 has a range of 600 meters, the AK-47 about 400 meters.

The longest distance kill I know of was during Vietnam, when Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock killed a VC on a bicycle at a range of just over 1 mile.  He used a tripod mounted M-2 50 calibur machine gun (yes, he was firing in a "single shot" mode, he fired only 1 shot and got a hit).  At well over 150 lbs, that is hardly a "portable" weapon.
End Quote

Dude, I was not suggesting you could mow down or kill from long distances with a pistol. I was saying if you can conceal it (hand gun), use it to mow people down (automatic rifle), or hit people from very far away (sniper rifle).

I'm sorry, guns make me nervous.

Quoting:
I can also kill with a baseball bat, a knife, an electrical cord (strangle or electrocute), a car, or many other things.  It is not the tool that kills the person, but the person that handles the tool.

Some people can kill just as easily with their bare hands.  But I do not go around fearing them.
End Quote

I don't 'fear' those things you mentioned above because I know that if you kill somebody with those things you are misusing/abusing those objects.

Quoting:

Dude, I was not suggesting you could mow down or kill from long distances with a pistol. I was saying if you can conceal it (hand gun), use it to mow people down (automatic rifle), or hit people from very far away (sniper rifle).

I'm sorry, guns make me nervous.
End Quote

It’s okay that guns make you nervous.  They make me nervous too, which is why I’ve never fired one and never plan to own one.  But it’s still wrong to ban something that many responsible people feel is useful and important (whether we feel that way or not) because there are irresponsible people who exist.  Apart from that, the war on guns is going to be every bit as effective as the war on drugs, for the same reasons.  There’s literally no difference between the two: They’re both things that a lot of people like and use.  They’re both things that a lot of other people dislike and want removed from society completely.  But like it or not, no matter how much money we waste pursuing drug dealers, the demand will continue to exist and be met.  The best thing to do is to allow the idiots to put whatever idiotic things they can think of into their bodies and focus on the ones who insist on inflicting themselves onto unwilling victims.  Government is not some magic thing that can automatically do whatever we want.  It’s a highly flawed tool composed of some of the most incompetent, entitlement-minded bureaucrats you’ll ever see (trust me; I work for the postal service). If ever the phrase “necessary evil” were appropriate, it is when it comes to government.  It would be nice if everyone else agreed with us about guns.  But they don’t, and they won’t, but that doesn’t make it right or even possible to legislate the problems away.

Quoting:


I don't 'fear' those things you mentioned above because I know that if you kill somebody with those things you are misusing/abusing those objects.


End Quote

You don't think someone who kills somebody (presumably an innocent somebody) with a gun is misusing or abusing it?  Do you really think that the ONLY thing anyone ever uses a gun for is to kill somebody?  Simply the knowledge that a homeowner MIGHT have a gun is enough for most criminals to pick another house.  Do you consider that an illegitimate use?  I know that for you nothing will ever be "legitimate" enough to be worth the risk, but fortunately you're not the only one who gets to decide what's legitimate.

Quoting:You don't think someone who kills somebody (presumably an innocent somebody) with a gun is misusing or abusing it?  Do you really think that the ONLY thing anyone ever uses a gun for is to kill somebody? End Quote

Ah no you're misinterpreting me, Claude. I was trying to say if you whack somebody over the head with a baseball bat you are misusing the object (not meant for that purpose) and if you fire a gun it is meant for that purpose (in a non hurtful way or not). I can't think of any other way of using a gun.

Quoting:Simply the knowledge that a homeowner MIGHT have a gun is enough for most criminals to pick another house.  Do you consider that an illegitimate use? End Quote

 

Maybe a burglar will call that homeowner's bluff, one day. If he shoots the burglar then the law won't protect him (hence the Tony Martin case in Britain) and that would be a sad state of affairs. If someone is to buy a gun for that reason alone, I suggest getting a good quality burglar alarm instead.

Quoting:I know that for you nothing will ever be "legitimate" enough to be worth the risk, but fortunately you're not the only one who gets to decide what's legitimate.End Quote

That's a bit harsh (and presumptious) isn't it Claude? This is my first proper discussion on the board and I refuse to turn it into an argument. I have only stated why I don't like guns, without intimidating anyone. I mean no disrespect to Race Bannon and Mr. 80s and I'm quite a liberal bloke really. Like John Harvey, I get nervous around people with guns - Am I going to ask a total stranger with a gun if he's rational? No fear.

You will be glad to know that I am not a political person so have no desire to decide what's legitimate for the majority.  ;)

Quoting:


Ah no you're misinterpreting me, Claude. I was trying to say if you whack somebody over the head with a baseball bat you are misusing the object (not meant for that purpose) and if you fire a gun it is meant for that purpose (in a non hurtful way or not). I can't think of any other way of using a gun.

 

Maybe a burglar will call that homeowner's bluff, one day. If he shoots the burglar then the law won't protect him (hence the Tony Martin case in Britain) and that would be a sad state of affairs. If someone is to buy a gun for that reason alone, I suggest getting a good quality burglar alarm instead.


That's a bit harsh (and presumptious) isn't it Claude? This is my first proper discussion on the board and I refuse to turn it into an argument. I have only stated why I don't like guns, without intimidating anyone. I mean no disrespect to Race Bannon and Mr. 80s and I'm quite a liberal bloke really. Like John Harvey, I get nervous around people with guns - Am I going to ask a total stranger with a gun if he's rational? No fear.

You will be glad to know that I am not a political person so have no desire to decide what's legitimate for the majority.  ;)
End Quote

Sorry; I know I'm coming across as a jerk and that's no way to win someone over.  But what I keep hearing is that you see no need for anyone to have a gun and so you prefer they be illegal. Am I wrong about this?  If so, again I apologize.  If not, I've already made my case and trying to say it yet another way is gonna hurt my brain.  Cheers.

Quoting:
Sorry; I know I'm coming across as a jerk and that's no way to win someone over.  But what I keep hearing is that you see no need for anyone to have a gun and so you prefer they be illegal. Am I wrong about this?  If so, again I apologize.  If not, I've already made my case and trying to say it yet another way is gonna hurt my brain.  Cheers.
End Quote

I suppose I've come across as a bit of a despot, Claude. I don't think it's that I see no need for them as much as I think they are very dangerous in the wrong hands. I don't think jelly (american: jello) is useful but I wouldn't have it illegalised.  :)

However, you are absolutely right that going off on a tangent in a discussion is not a good idea, often the cause of many arguments on the board. On this level, I think we have done well. I don't like arguing at the best of times and often prefer to avoid it.

I have taken your thoughts on board, Claude and I have learnt that not everybody feels the same way about things I thought were straightforward issues. Each to his own, heh?

Thanks for the discussion.