Guns

kwsteve

Kinder Eggs are banned in the US because they contain small toys that are considered too dangerous for children. Guns do not contain such small parts.

wildbill7145

kwsteve;352487 wroteKinder Eggs are banned in the US because they contain small toys that are considered too dangerous for children. Guns do not contain such small parts.

They do, but they're still not banned but promoted. Apparently

You have the driest sense of humour and it's awesome.

Milo

kwsteve;352487 wroteKinder Eggs are banned in the US because they contain small toys that are considered too dangerous for children. Guns do not contain such small parts.

.22 is a pretty small round . . .

Bfillmaff

Stumbled across this post while searching for something else. As a gun nut myself I cannot just pass by. (its a weakness, I know.)

so..... BUMP!

DrTyore (OP), when I met you in person I watched you pound near a full bottle of whiskey. Can you tell me what purpose that whiskey serves, besides your own enjoyment? Did you NEED that whiskey? Could you not successfully argue that drinking whiskey provides no benefit to society and only causes problems?

What about the potential harm to society? I mean, people on whiskey are dangerous! You *could* have driven home. You *could* have got into a fight. You *could* have caused people around you to be uncomfortable. (for the record I'm not saying any of these apply to you.) Should we ban whiskey and make the community safer? I mean, the availability of whiskey itself has to cause a negative net impact, correct? Could families of drunk driving victims, for example, lobby to have your rights taken away based on their own perspective of the issue?

Well hold on... if we ban whiskey... would it in any way stop the loudest, drunkest, stupidest portion of whiskey drinkers (ie: the problem) from doing so? or would it just affect guys like you and I, who just want to enjoy our god damned whiskey as we enjoy it and it is our right to do so?

OK then, how about we legislate what types of whiskey you can buy and how much of it you can have. Lets say, you are only allowed to drink 6 shots per night, and must take them 45 minutes apart each. Feels good doesn't it? Nothing like some legislation to whip us all into shape. Will it affect those who actually cause a problem? No. Will it stop anyone from drinking more than those limits? No. Will it feel good in a press release and have everyone rubbing their vaginas with how much safer the world is?? Count on it. Will it turn a bunch of otherwise great people into criminals? Yes.

I think what I am trying to say is that "I don't like guns, so you shouldn't be able to have them" is a bad argument. I would agree that in your particular situation and in your own perspective, you probably don't need one. But let me ask you: What if you legitimately felt that you did need one? And more importantly: What if you just really enjoyed it, aren't hurting anybody, have completed all firearms safety training, had background checks done on you regularly, safely stored your rifles at home, following all rules - and then had to deal with others trying to take it all away based on the actions of a few lunatics who broke all of those laws and then some?

Lastly, a few statements I thought I would throw in:

1. Fully automatic weapons are 100% illegal in Canada and 99% illegal in the USA. An AR-15 is not a fully automatic weapon, it just looks like one. Pull trigger, bullet comes out. Just like a hunting rifle.

2. Handguns (and scary looking rifles) are heavily controlled in Canada. To purchase one I need a separate licence, and am not allowed to take it out of the house without authorization to do so as well as placing the locked gun in a locked case. Therefore it is *already illegal* to use my handgun for anything but target shooting.

3. Millions of guns are here. "If there were no guns" is not a legitimate argument as it is based 100% on fantasy. There is no possible way to get these off of the street even if we wanted to. (Yes you could take the legal guns from legal owners, but they arent the ones shooting people)

4. If you read this whole post, thank you. It is your right to disagree if you still do. I will place an open invitation to DrTyore or anyone on this forum who would like to come to the shooting range with me and responsibly blast off a few rounds. You might just find that you like it!

The_Awesome

I should have the right to legally defend my family in my home if someone decides to bring a gun into my house uninvited.

It can be misused but it won't. I could run you over in my car tomorrow but I won't.

Reasonable possession of reasonable fire arms with reasonable rules to protect against misuse is a right in my opinion.

On top of that American's believe that they have the right to possess arms in order to protect themselves from a Government gone too far. It is hard to imagine in this privileged world we now live in but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

DrTyore

Hey!

Just yesterday I was thinking "You know, Prohibition may not have been that bad an idea".

Your argument is pretty golid overall, with the motivational and potential problems behind drinking. I can't offhand dispute any of the logic. However, I will say that alcohol in its various forms are sold and offered as a recreational adult beverage. I won't even start with those BS "drink a day are healthy" things, everyone generally knows that booze is unhealthy. Further, you are right that some people who, when drinking, become a potential hazard, and you didn't even mention things like mothers who harm their children drinking while pregnant.

However, guns are still single purpose items, and that purpose is to make anything in front of the pointy end not exist anymore. I'm further sure that if you consider the statistical increase of "chance of shooting you and yours" vs "Chance of otherwise non-criminogenic persons becoming a significant threat to you and yours", the gun thing would be a higher risk assessment.

Mark

The Prophet 22

Bfillmaff;371647 wrote 4. If you read this whole post, thank you. It is your right to disagree if you still do. I will place an open invitation to DrTyore or anyone on this forum who would like to come to the shooting range with me and responsibly blast off a few rounds. You might just find that you like it!

once i start working again, I will take you up on that offer.

Bfillmaff

DrTyore;371672 wrote However, guns are still single purpose items, and that purpose is to make anything in front of the pointy end not exist anymore.

purpose # 1: hunting
purpose # 2: personal enjoyment
purpose # 3: protecting
purpose # 4: making anything in front of the pointy end not exist anymore.

I'll give you that 1 to 3 are made possible by #4, but that's like saying a deck of cards should be illegal because you could illegally gamble with them.

DrTyore;371672 wrote
I'm further sure that if you consider the statistical increase of "chance of shooting you and yours" vs "Chance of otherwise non-criminogenic persons becoming a significant threat to you and yours", the gun thing would be a higher risk assessment.

Mark

there may be little chance of someone becoming a threat, but there is zero chance of my gun being used on me and mine. None. I follow the laws we have. I don't shoot people. I promote gun safety and responsible shooting. 0.1 > 0.

I know it feels good on paper to say "you cant have guns," but the crimes being committed with guns are being committed with illegal ones as is. these are the exact guns that are not affected by any new laws. So we aren't just debating "are guns evil?" but also "does gun control work on anyone but the law abiding? The answers are No and No!

Milo

With respect to #3, as a responsible firearms owner you know damn well that a firearm CANNOT be legally stored within your home in such a manner as to make it practical to be used in "home protection". Unless of course, your home is being invade by the most inept, slowest B&E artists on the planet.

But your points are well made . . .

DrTyore

Bfillmaff;371682 wrotepurpose # 1: hunting
purpose # 2: personal enjoyment
purpose # 3: protecting
purpose # 4: making anything in front of the pointy end not exist anymore.

I'll give you that 1 to 3 are made possible by #4, but that's like saying a deck of cards should be illegal because you could illegally gamble with them.

there may be little chance of someone becoming a threat, but there is zero chance of my gun being used on me and mine. None. I follow the laws we have. I don't shoot people. I promote gun safety and responsible shooting. 0.1 > 0.

I know it feels good on paper to say "you cant have guns," but the crimes being committed with guns are being committed with illegal ones as is. these are the exact guns that are not affected by any new laws. So we aren't just debating "are guns evil?" but also "does gun control work on anyone but the law abiding? The answers are No and No!

I don't think I've once made a point based on illegally used guns / gun ownership and registration. I am pretty much saying that if you have a gun withing xx feet of you, you have a marked increase of bullet-itis. For what it's worth though, I did a little google-fu of "gun injuries crimes or accidents" and got this summary

For the non link clickers, this tickled me some:

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Essentially, your purpose #3 is the least common use of a gun that involves bullets in flesh. Didn't much do anything on "enjoyment", and I've already previously said the hunting this is weak regardless.

Mark

Bfillmaff

you are 10,000 times more likely to die in a pool if you have a pool.

ban pools?

Hang to Dry

Bfillmaff;371762 wroteyou are 10,000 times more likely to die in a pool if you have a pool.

ban pools?

[citation needed]

Made-up statistics do nothing to promote your point.

Bfillmaff

statistics in general do nothing to promote either point. you just go to "I'mRight.com*" and find some stats that validate your point. do I really need to google the exact number for you to understand that you are more likely to have a pool accident if you have a pool, and likewise more likely to have a gun accident if you have a gun????

*credit to comedian Bill Burr for the I'mRight.com reference

DrTyore

Bfillmaff;371793 wrotestatistics in general do nothing to promote either point. you just go to "I'mRight.com*" and find some stats that validate your point. do I really need to google the exact number for you to understand that you are more likely to have a pool accident if you have a pool, and likewise more likely to have a gun accident if you have a gun????

*credit to comedian Bill Burr for the I'mRight.com reference

Pools serve a purposes both recreational and comfort. This is the same argument when dumbasses put "This is a car - last year 8 bajillion people died because of car accidents - we need to ban this" as a witty retort. Once more.. guns are murder machines, they are designed to kill and only to kill. You don't prepare food with a gun like you do a knife (don't claim that hunting angle there either). You don't build houses with guns (bullet guns, nail guns not included). You obliterate whatever is on the business end of it.

Mark

Bfillmaff

I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you on that one. I think the recreational value (yes, hunting included) is why I love guns most, and call it an acceptable risk given the alternatives.

I have no problem with your stance, just had to put in my two cents. The invitation stands if you ever want to obliterate some paper targets at the local range, and I promise you that no babies will die as a result of our outing!

DrTyore

I may just take you up on the shooting range thing...

But "agree to disagree"? Pffft.. cop out ;)

Mark

Bfillmaff

Been in Canada all my life but I was born in the USA... at this point I'm just holding back the inner "YALL AINT TAKIN MY GUNZ!!.... agree to disagree is as good as it gets!

edit: also... sitting near the top of the field of the Micro Main Event, on T8's stake... can't argue right now!!

Milo

DrTyore;371839 wrotePools serve a purposes both recreational and comfort.
So can firearms.
Once more.. guns are murder machines,
You do your argument no good by resorting to ridiculous hyperbole. Makes you look silly.
they are designed to kill and only to kill.
Demonstrably false. How many deaths in the Olympic Biathlon?
You don't prepare food with a gun like you do a knife (don't claim that hunting angle there either). You don't build houses with guns (bullet guns, nail guns not included). You obliterate whatever is on the business end of it.

Mark

This country, unlike our neighbour to the south, has (in my opinion) reasonable and prudent restrictions on firearms, both in terms of licensing and storage. The notion that this country would be safer if firearms were somehow made to "go away" (even if the illegal ones disappeared, too) is simply ridiculous. Carry on, however . . . you obviously enjoy tilting at windmills.

800OVER

Milo;371857 wroteThis country, unlike our neighbour to the south, has (in my opinion) reasonable and prudent restrictions on firearms, both in terms of licensing and storage. The notion that this country would be safer if firearms were somehow made to "go away" (even if the illegal ones disappeared, too) is simply ridiculous. Carry on, however . . . you obviously enjoy tilting at windmills.

You're saying that if illegal guns went away we wouldn't be safer?

Milo

"Safe" is a relative term . . .

I am saying that, rather than walking into a 7-11 and flashing a pistol, crooks would turn to other means of intimidation. Knives, or bats, for example. They would also likely go in in groups for greater security, increasing the likelihood that something untoward might happen.

Removing firearms from the equation does nothing to remove CRIME from the equation. Or suicide for that matter.

The ONLY area in which "safety" would improve is in the area of "accidental" shootings. I would be interested to see how many of those there are in this country.

« Previous Page Next Page »