Why are guns made to kill?

[ponderingturtle]

Well it is a personal problem actually. I just want to know more about the attitudes towards firearms on this forum. Merely discussing certain firearms on JREF can lead to sexual harassment on the forum. Some members here will claim that certain guns can have no sporting use just because they are so ignorant about firearms in general.

Ranb

Any weapon can have sporting uses. You could have a sport of target shooting with ICBM's. It is when is sporting useage legitimate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

However, if someone said that martial arts are, in fact, "made" (developed) to fight people, I would not deny that. Sure, some may be more focused on recreational purposes than others, but in the end the purpose of martial arts as a whole is to fight people. I do not use them to fight - you do not use guns to kill - but the original purpose may differ.

Debatable. Some are, but some are Yellow Bamboo.

 

[Cuddles]

An important point that I haven't seen anyone make (sorry if I missed it) is that the whole premise of the thread is basically a straw man. Sure, not all guns are made to kill. So what? The guns people complain about aren't the sporting ones or the non-lethal ones or the race starting guns, or whatever else. The guns that virtually all gun control arguments focus on are the ones that are made to kill. People don't keep guns by their bed in case they need to start a race in a hurry. People don't carry concealed guns in the street in case there's a sudden attack of flying clay plates. They have them to kill.

I guess "They want to ban all guns. They can take them from my cold, dead hands." makes a better sound bite than "They want tighter controls on guns which have no use other than to kill people. They can introduce better regulations over my... um.. yeah.".

 

[Autolite]

Any weapon can have sporting uses. You could have a sport of target shooting with ICBM's.

Nah. ICBMs employ highly sophisticated computer controlled electronic guidance and navigation systems. No challenge, no sport. Now what about shoulder fired anti-tank TOW missiles? That would be a hoot!!!

 

[Drudgewire]

So there is no misunderstanding, my guns are made to kill people. Shooting to wound is retarded.

And like I pointed out in the last thread, the very reason no one was able to sue Winchester over the Black Talon ammo was the ruling that since the bullets were made to kill people, you can't sue because they did what they were supposed to.

Semantics and sensitivities aside, this is a dumb argument on both sides. Guns are made to kill, and in certain situations we have the right to use them to kill. Regardless of where you stand on the gun issue, thems is the facts.

 

[Autolite]

They have them to kill.

Really that depends on what the gun laws are where you live. Here in Canada, people carrying guns for self protection is so extremely rare (by law) that it is virtually non-existent. An exception would be, say, someone working alone in the far north who is pestered by polar bears on a daily basis.

Canadians are forbidden by law to keep an unlocked, loaded firearm in their home for self defence. Even bullets are to be stored "away" from the gun.

Canadian police aren't even allowed to carry off duty. About the only circumstance where a Canadian private citizen could be legally justifiable in using a firearm for personal defence would be if they where attacked by a gang of homicidal maniacs waving Samurai swords while they where at the target practice range. Even then, the victim would have to demonstrate in court that their life was in grave danger and that there was no route of escape.

There is a vast number of responsible gun owners here in Canada (particularly the western provinces) who enjoy hunting, sport and competition shooting. They cannot claim that they keep gun for personal protection (IE. "to kill") because the Canadian laws would make that illegal under the overwhelming majority of possible scenarios.

What the Canadian anti-gun law lobby is concerned about is primarily the criminal use of firearms. Their rationale is that if they where to go to Lethbridge Alberta and confiscate grandpa's second world war revolver it will prevent the gang bangers in Toronto from blowing each others head's off. I guess logic must be subjective ...

 

[JoeEllison]

So there is no misunderstanding, my guns are made to kill people. Shooting to wound is retarded.

And like I pointed out in the last thread, the very reason no one was able to sue Winchester over the Black Talon ammo was the ruling that since the bullets were made to kill people, you can't sue because they did what they were supposed to.

Semantics and sensitivities aside, this is a dumb argument on both sides. Guns are made to kill, and in certain situations we have the right to use them to kill. Regardless of where you stand on the gun issue, thems is the facts.

Well, at least you're being honest... we might not agree on what should be done about gun control, but at least you're not pretending that guns are the equivalent of butterflies or daisies.

 

[Drudgewire]

Well, at least you're being honest... we might not agree on what should be done about gun control, but at least you're not pretending that guns are the equivalent of butterflies or daisies.

Yeah, it's something that always gets my goat regardless of the issue. It's disingenuous, much like arguing for medical marijuana by people who just want to be able to go to the store and buy a bag of weed. You aren't going to catch glaucoma, so quit dancing around the issue.

 

[richardm]

You know, in Britain you absolutely can own a gun if it is locked safely in a secure area. The only thing is, that secure area will not be in your house. It will be at your gun club.

Errrr has something changed that I've missed? You can keep guns at your home provided they are adequately secured. At least rifles and shotguns and their ilk. And their ammunition too.

NoNoNoNoNoNoNo!!!! Why do you want the gun at home??

So I can shoot things near to home

What you do have to do is convince the local police that you have a good reason for wanting to have the gun. Since this includes sport and vermin control this is pretty straightforward for most people. Self defence is not a good reason, incidentally.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yeah, it's something that always gets my goat regardless of the issue. It's disingenuous, much like arguing for medical marijuana by people who just want to be able to go to the store and buy a bag of weed. You aren't going to catch glaucoma, so quit dancing around the issue.

Or the one that goes "I'm hunting to feed my family" from a guy with $5,000 worth of hunting gear. Why, because he couldn't buy $5,000 worth of meat at the grocery store? I've known guys who hunt out of necessity... they had $400 rifles from Walmart, and old army uniforms from the surplus store.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Or the one that goes "I'm hunting to feed my family" from a guy with $5,000 worth of hunting gear. Why, because he couldn't buy $5,000 worth of meat at the grocery store? I've known guys who hunt out of necessity... they had $400 rifles from Walmart, and old army uniforms from the surplus store.

I have also known people who hunted because venison is not well available in stores, and do to allergies most common meats where not acceptable.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

... Other studies have concluded that firearms were frequently used for defense without actually discharging the gun. ...

One of the main problems with guns is that they can kill more people more efficiently than, say, a golf club.

The gun lobby in the USA unfortunately seems to accept the regular culling of US citizens by nutters as the acceptable price to pay for their 'hobbies'.

 

[Drudgewire]

One of the main problems with guns is that they can kill more people more efficiently than, say, a golf club.

The gun lobby in the USA unfortunately seems to accept the regular culling of US citizens by nutters as the acceptable price to pay for their 'hobbies'.

Actually, my main reason for taking part in this "hobby" is to protect myself from said nutters should the situation arise.

And guns killing more efficiently than golf clubs isn't a problem... unless you're the idiot who tries to protect your house with a 3 wood.

 

[Autolite]

One of the main problems with guns is that they can kill more people more efficiently than, say, a golf club.

I lived in Winnipeg several years ago where each and every morning news broadcast began with "Last night a stabbing occurred at " and/or "The Domo* located at such and such location was held up at knife point".

The running joke was than anyone living in the city could write their own morning news copy in advance. The only requirement being to change the address or location of the stabbings.

I thought it curious that no one ever proposed any knife control initiatives. I suppose that the general populace was content that the murder victims were dispatched by a "less efficient" method ...

*(Dominion Oil gasoline service station. A full service establishment manned 24 hours by a sole attendant who was forbidden by federal laws to employ a firearm for the purposes of self protection. On the employment application forms to work at a "Domo" you had to fill in your "preferred funeral home" of choice).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, my main reason for taking part in this "hobby" is to protect myself from said nutters should the situation arise.

And guns killing more efficiently than golf clubs isn't a problem... unless you're the idiot who tries to protect your house with a 3 wood.

Of course the best home defense is command detonated mines.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Actually, my main reason for taking part in this "hobby" is to protect myself from said nutters should the situation arise.

And guns killing more efficiently than golf clubs isn't a problem... unless you're the idiot who tries to protect your house with a 3 wood.

People like you are the ones who effectively make the guns available for the nutters/sons/daughters/uncles.

To illustrate. When was the latest time you entered into a firefight with a nutter?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I lived in Winnipeg several years ago where each and every morning news broadcast began with "Last night a stabbing occurred at " and/or "The Domo* located at such and such location was held up at knife point".

The running joke was than anyone living in the city could write their own morning news copy in advance. The only requirement being to change the address or location of the stabbings.

I thought it curious that no one ever proposed any knife control initiatives. I suppose that the general populace was content that the murder victims were dispatched by a "less efficient" method ...

*(Dominion Oil gasoline service station. A full service establishment manned 24 hours by a sole attendant who was forbidden by federal laws to employ a firearm for the purposes of self protection. On the employment application forms to work at a "Domo" you had to fill in your "preferred funeral home" of choice).

The UK has had many knife control initiatives. Has Canada really ignored knife crime?

The fact remains that you don't generally get the sort of multiple murders seen so regularly in US schools and shopping malls with knives.

Firearms employed for self protection have a guaranteed habit of getting into the hands of the nutters with the normal results, namely the deaths of many people.

If you believe your life is endangered by your job I suggest a simple solution. Rather than endangering the rest of the population - don't take the job. The thought that the pimply youth in a petrol station was armed to the teeth would result in me and much of the population over here, I would suggest, avoiding said petrol company promptly, permanently and en masse.

 

[Ranb]

One of the main problems with guns is that they can kill more people more efficiently than, say, a golf club......

True.

I used to tell people that the Kennedy clan has killed five more people with cars, airplanes and golf clubs than I have with my gun collection. Also true, but meaningless.

Ranb

 

[volatile]

The thought that the pimply youth in a petrol station was armed to the teeth would result in me and much of the population over here, I would suggest, avoiding said petrol company promptly, permanently and en masse.

In the other current gun control thread, WildCat poste a link to a list of news stories, one of which was the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3431827&postcount=392

""Woman kills beer thief at convenience store

A woman working alone at an Old East Dallas convenience store in 2005 shot and killed a man who walked out without paying for two cases of beer.

As 32-year-old Joshua Coleman walked out the door, Basy Thach grabbed a pistol from beneath the counter and demanded that he stop. When he didn't, she shot him in the back.

Ms. Thach told police that because the man had tattoos, she felt threatened.

Police arrested her on suspicion of murder because Mr. Coleman was unarmed. A Dallas County grand jury declined to indict her."


How people can claim mass gun ownership makes them feel safer I have no idea whatsoever.

 

[Ranb]

.....About the only circumstance where a Canadian private citizen could be legally justifiable in using a firearm for personal defence would be if they where attacked by a gang of homicidal maniacs waving Samurai swords while they where at the target practice range. Even then, the victim would have to demonstrate in court that their life was in grave danger and that there was no route of escape.

They cannot claim that they keep gun for personal protection (IE. "to kill") because the Canadian laws would make that illegal under the overwhelming majority of possible scenarios.

I do not know much about Canadian guns laws, so I will ask you. If a Canadian private citizen had a gun and used it to defend him or herself from a "gang of homicidal maniacs waving Samurai swords", but just pointed the gun at them and politely asked them to leave, would that be illegal? Let us assume in this case that the victim stood her ground instead of trying to run away. Thanks.

Ranb