I own a gun!

[GreNME]

NOT running cable through a wall.

[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif[/qimg]

When idiots go horribly wrong!

Precisely the types of yahoos I was talking about in my previous post.

-----

What illegal specs are you referring to? I'm assuming that you live in the USA, and are not in prison. The federal government does not prohibit any firearm specification, except machine guns made by unlicensed persons after May 1986. I can chop down a rifle or shotgun barrel to any length I want; no license or permit needed. It only requires a tax and routine ATF approval as long as I live in a state that does not prohibit it.

Ranb

It varies from state to state, but you're correct that chopping off a shotgun wouldn't get you in trouble. Most of the illegal stuff has to do with rifles and machine guns, as far as I know (which isn't nearly all-inclusive).

-----

And the disabled? Do you teach the use of firearms for self defense? Aren't firearms an acceptable means of defense?

Ranb

Depending on the disability, I would strongly suggest against someone disabled handling a firearm in most cases, so I'm not sure what you're trying to ask me. Someone in a wheelchair might be competent enough to handle a firearm on a range but not have the ability to reach and use that same firearm if assaulted. I'm not saying that there won't be exceptions to the rule, but as a general rule when you bring up "disabled" there are usually mitigating circumstances that would cost the time necessary to make use of a firearm in the case of an assault. There are very small windows during an assault where a firearm has efficacy, and after that window it doesn't matter if the person being assaulted has a mounted howitzer on their shoulder to protect them. It's a longer and more complex subject, but on the whole the ability to take control of a situation like a mugging has a much larger window when firearms aren't brought to bear. The goal of taking control of a situation involving criminal assault is to first survive, not to take out the person assaulting. Firearms can be useful in some cases, but as I pointed out the window is often much smaller than with other techniques.

-----

Ok, I should be the one supplying information that non-firing guns rarely have collectors value in the USA, but I do not have it at my fingertips right now. What information do you have that shows non-firing guns with collector's value are not rare compared to functioning guns? I am not saying they do not exist, I am claiming that working guns with collector's value far outnumber valuable non-firing guns.

Ranb

Well, now you're switching up a little bit. First you said that non-firing collectors guns were rare, now you're saying rare compared to firing guns. I'd say the latter is true enough, but the former is false.

-----

Biathlon.

I guess the Olympics are not shown in Folsom? So are those guys and gals who spend a significant amount of their free time putting holes in paper are wasting their time?

I feel sorry for those on the Olympic shooting team in Great Britain who need to go abroad to practice because their sport is illegal at home.

Ranb

I should have figured that sport shooting would be brought up. Semi-unrelated note:are you aware that gunpower firearms are no longer used in Olympic events?

But back to sport shooting. What, pray tell, is the goal in sport shooting? As far as I know, it's accuracy. Much like the javelin throw, the point of the sport is to show a higher capability with a weapon. Since it's not practical (or controllable) to have Olympic athletes shooting at living targets to prove their skill in the contest, targets are used. However, attempting to ignore the fact that the skill being tested is the skill to accurately fire a weapon whose only purpose is to kill would be a folly.

The purpose of a firearm isn't necessarily to kill a human, but make no mistake that the sole purpose of a firearm-- despite how an owner may use it-- is to kill, and to kill from a distance. Much like with bows and crossbows, some of the mechanics of what guns do have been modified to have alternate utilitarian purposes-- a nail gun, for instance-- but firearms themselves are built to kill from a distance. I see no need to try to avoid that fact.

 

[Drudgewire]

It is because, "that when a gun comes into play in any situation other than shooting targets then the implication is that the person holding the gun intends for whomever it gets pointed at to die." Not my words, someone elses; on this forum, in this thread.

Well, the general rule of gun safety is don't point it at anything you aren't about to shoot. If I ever point it at somebody, it will be with the intent to kill them.

Thing is I don't point it at anything except targets, and hopefully never will.

 

[GreNME]

It is because, "that when a gun comes into play in any situation other than shooting targets then the implication is that the person holding the gun intends for whomever it gets pointed at to die." Not my words, someone elses; on this forum, in this thread. I'm not claiming that the above person really believes that your hobby is a threat to another person's life, but some others certainly think so.

Ranb

Please don't twist my words. I already stated pretty clearly that I have no problem with owning firearms. Not being able to call a spade a spade, however, isn't a mistake I have to make in order to continue such support. So far, BPSCG has had the most logically consistent arguments in favor of ownership, not using any unnecessary emotional arguments or rhetorical acrobatics.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, but there is no need to keep those guns at home, is there?

Yes. They are my property. I own them.

Only necessary if the assaulter has a gun as well

Nope. Not going to let you stab me, or bash my head in with a bat, etc.

 

[RoboTimbo]

My Arsenal at the moment:

1 Brown Bess Tower Musket.
1 Hawkins Muzzle loading Rifle (as shown in "Jeremiah Johnson)
1 Three Banded Enfield Rifle Musket (as shown in "GLory")
1 Flintlock Pistol
1.Navy Colt Cap and Ball Revolver
1 Colt .45 "Peacemaker" revolver (as shown in endless Westerns)
1 Winchester Level Action rifle (as shown in "WInchester 73" and "Shaun Of the Dead")
One Scattergun for Bird Hunting.
Except for the Scatter gun, used mainly for Historical Reenactments and Target Competion.
Please explain to me why these weapons in my possesion pose a threat to society.

Evidence? Please post here.

 

[GreNME]

Well, the general rule of gun safety is don't point it at anything you aren't about to shoot. If I ever point it at somebody, it will be with the intent to kill them.

Thing is I don't point it at anything except targets, and hopefully never will.

That's precisely what I was taught as well. Cool list, by the way.

ETA: I meant, dudalb, cool list. My mistake.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I should have figured that sport shooting would be brought up.

Then why did you make the incorrect statement that they are only used to kill if you already knew there was an argument to refute it?

But back to sport shooting. What, pray tell, is the goal in sport shooting?

To shoot targets. I don't 'kill' the targets. Would you also say that the purpose of a car is to kill and driving to work is just practice?

 

[GreNME]

Then why did you make the incorrect statement that they are only used to kill if you already knew there was an argument to refute it?



To shoot targets. I don't 'kill' the targets. Would you also say that the purpose of a car is to kill and driving to work is just practice?

You're performing rhetorical acrobatics in order to avoid the obvious. You're also conflating the goal of the athlete in the competition with the purpose of the weapon.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But back to sport shooting. What, pray tell, is the goal in sport shooting? As far as I know, it's accuracy. Much like the javelin throw, the point of the sport is to show a higher capability with a weapon. Since it's not practical (or controllable) to have Olympic athletes shooting at living targets to prove their skill in the contest, targets are used. However, attempting to ignore the fact that the skill being tested is the skill to accurately fire a weapon whose only purpose is to kill would be a folly.

The purpose of a firearm isn't necessarily to kill a human, but make no mistake that the sole purpose of a firearm-- despite how an owner may use it-- is to kill, and to kill from a distance. Much like with bows and crossbows, some of the mechanics of what guns do have been modified to have alternate utilitarian purposes-- a nail gun, for instance-- but firearms themselves are built to kill from a distance. I see no need to try to avoid that fact.

These two paragraphs are an Olympic effort at rhetorical acrobatics, twisting target shooting into killing. I give it a 9.5.

 

[GreNME]

As I said, you're conflating the purpose of the firearm with the goal of the athlete. Take a step back and stop trying to turn this into an accusation by me that anyone who owns or uses a gun plans to kill someone, and go back to the single, sole utilitarian purpose of the firearm itself. This isn't the emotional issue that you're trying to turn it into.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As I said, you're conflating the purpose of the firearm with the goal of the athlete. Take a step back and stop trying to turn this into an accusation by me that anyone who owns or uses a gun plans to kill someone, and go back to the single, sole utilitarian purpose of the firearm itself. This isn't the emotional issue that you're trying to turn it into.

You made a statement that the only purpose of guns is killing. Multiple examples of NOT killing were given. I must be missing your point.

 

[Ranb]

Someone in a wheelchair might be competent enough to handle a firearm on a range but not have the ability to reach and use that same firearm if assaulted.

Well, now you're switching up a little bit. First you said that non-firing collectors guns were rare, now you're saying rare compared to firing guns. I'd say the latter is true enough, but the former is false.

I should have figured that sport shooting would be brought up. Semi-unrelated note:are you aware that gunpower firearms are no longer used in Olympic events?

I was thinking of those confined to a wheelchair, but still have complete use of their hands. As far as I know, it would not be difficult for a otherwise healthy paraplegic to conceal a pistol and have it handy for defense.

I did not intend to pull a switchero. I will agree that valuable non-firing guns are only rare in comparison to functional guns.

No, I was unaware that firearms are not being used at the Olympics. I was not able to find any info on this as information on specific events at the 2012 games is not so easy to find right now. What link did you find that says rifles, pistols and shotguns are not being used? Thanks.

Ranb

Edited to add; This link says there will be a trap event at the 2012 games. http://www.uksport.gov.uk/news/uk_to_host_shotgun_world_cup_in_build_up_to_2012/

 

[MikeMangum]

For what irrefutable important reason should someone own a gun...?

I'm assuming you meant to ask for justification for why someone should be allowed to own a gun...

For what irrefutably important reason should someone own a Beetles CD? Or a painting by Monet? Or a television? Or a wedding ring? Or a soccer ball? Or a wine glass? Or, or, or...

If you really want to know the important reasons to own a gun...

Firstly, self defense. The most fundamental right is the right to defend yourself from harm.

Secondly, well, I'll quote from the very first Bill of Rights adopted in America, the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

Thirdly, absent some very compelling reason, government should not constrain the freedom of it's citizens. Which brings me to this:

Wrong.

19th highest in the world DC?

And South Africa, with draconian gun control laws, is #1 on the list. Zimbabwe in 2005 ordered the confiscation of all privately owned guns, and it is #4 on the list.

Exactly why is there a distinction in some people's mind between murder and murder with a gun? For some people, apparently you are less dead if you are bludgeoned to death with a shovel instead of shot and killed with a gun. Personally, whenever I see someone who reflexively resorts to statistics about murder involving firearms or violent crime involving firearms, my first instinct is to assume they are not going to argue in faith.

Look on the exact same website for overall murder rates, where Switzerland is #56 and Germany is #49. The UK has even stricter gun controls than Germany, and it is #46.

If someone really wants to make the assertion that gun control laws reduce violent crime or murder, they need to present evidence to back it up. Good luck with that.

 

[GreNME]

You made a statement that the only purpose of guns is killing. Multiple examples of NOT killing were given. I must be missing your point.

No, only one example of not killing was given: shooting targets. Which is practice for killing more accurately. That the practice has become a sport isn't surprising, given that historically most of the Olympic games in antiquity served the same purpose-- practice and comparing technique.

Again, you're just trying to get out of calling a spade a spade here. There's no need. That it has the purpose of killing does not decrease its usefulness or the enjoyment one can get out of only using it in practice (target) use. Most martial arts nowadays are studied for the same purpose, and the practitioners are better off (more healthy) for it.

 

[Piscivore]

I have a gun in case the Germans get up to their old shenanigans again.

 

[Piggy]

I think Joe Strummer said it best:

When they kick in your front door,
how you gonna go --
shot down on the pavement
or waiting in death row?

Death row sounds real boring.

 

[Xulld]

Self defense: Only necessary if the assaulter has a gun as well, which - thanks to the restricted gun laws - rarely is the case over here. So no good argument for allowing guns in the first place, especially in light of the good guys turning into the bad ones at some point in time.

I am curious what world you live in where in no situation a gun would be needed for self defense against someone without a gun . . . .

I am 6'4 240 ilbs. with over 15 years of martial experience, there are many people that would need a gun to stop me from murdering them . . . .

That is only a single example, about me, I happen to be a pacifist, does that change the equation? Considerably.
Attitude is what matters. Not the availability of firearms.

What about a little old lady . . . should a defenseless person not be allowed a weapon to make defense possible?

How does that make any sense at all. This clearly shows that gun bans which are black and white do nothing to solve such a Grey issue.

 

[GreNME]

I was thinking of those confined to a wheelchair, but still have complete use of their hands. As far as I know, it would not be difficult for a otherwise healthy paraplegic to conceal a pistol and have it handy for defense.

I figured a dexterous person in a wheelchair was what you were getting at, but I'd still advise someone in that situation who wanted a gun for self defense to instead consider an alternative. Being in a wheelchair alone lowers one's area of use with a firearm, and it lessens the window of time where a firearm would be useful.

I did not intend to pull a switchero. I will agree that valuable non-firing guns are only rare in comparison to functional guns.

I believe you. And yeah, there are definitely more working firearms than non-functional that are collectible.

No, I was unaware that firearms are not being used at the Olympics. I was not able to find any info on this as information on specific events at the 2012 games is not so easy to find right now. What link did you find that says rifles, pistols and shotguns are not being used? Thanks.

Ranb

It looks like I wasn't totally correct. I think the biathlon still uses a rifle with .22 LR rounds, and there's a handgun targeting event that still uses regular handguns. Airguns have been popping up more and more in sport shooting events, though, which is why I think I mistook it.

 

[GreNME]

I am 6'4 240 ilbs. with over 15 years of martial experience, there are many people that would need a gun to stop me from murdering them . . . .

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself. Good for you!

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, only one example of not killing was given: shooting targets.

It only needed one.