Why are guns made to kill?

[gumboot]

Mmmmm...it did sort of grab my attention, in a strange sort of way.

Finding a place willing to be a target is, of course another matter...

The Australian outback...

On a more serious note, every time I read the OP of this thread I think:

"Someone needs to campaign for more rights for guns, they shouldn't be made to do anything."

 

[Mobyseven]

The Australian outback...

On a more serious note, every time I read the OP of this thread I think:

"Someone needs to campaign for more rights for guns, they shouldn't be made to do anything."

Stay the hell away from our outback! There are valuable things out there - opals, uranium, even some people! We need to find somewhere completely devoid of worth to target...

South Island of New Zealand?

 

[Ranb]

.....The use and possession of motor vehicles in the USA is more strongly controlled than the use and possession of firearms in the USA.

I'm not sure what you mean by more strictly controlled, but I disagree with your comment.

I can walk into any car dealership and buy a car. No license, background check or permit needed, just get someone to drive it home for me. Once at home, I can drive it all I want without a license on private property. If I buy a car in one state, it is legal to own in all other states, ditto for the license. Has there ever been an obstacle to buying a car other than money?

I need a background check to buy a gun from a dealer. Some states ban certain guns, so if I bring some of my guns that are legal to own in Washington to California, I am subject to felony jail time. Ownership of some weapons require that I obtain the local sheriff's signature on an ATF form which can be denied for any reason. Some weapons are taxed($200) more than they are worth. My carry permit is not accepted in most states.

Ranb

 

[ponderingturtle]

Doesn't the Goodwin principle apply to calling someone a name and not the discussion of an issue in a serious way?

No. It is generaly about comparing someones position to the Nazi's, but it would fit well in this case.

specificaly the law is

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

So it is a perfect Godwining of the thread.

So Godwin does apply.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, just in case one of those roving packs of rapists or lesbians with pink pistols wander too close to your "castle"?

The Pink Pistols might well be in favor of that law though. They are a very pro gun GLBT organization.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Who elected the law makers???

People, but their wants do not nessacarily get represented, I have never heard it claimed that a majority of people where in favor of the 18th amendment.

Why did you cut out the part where I cited an example of laws being made that the majority did not want?

 

[ponderingturtle]

To be honest, I definitely prefer our society to one where teenagers run up to you and punch you in the face while their friend captures it on a cellphone camera because they know they have the upper hand.

We have a terrible gang problem. But chavs are a fad that would have lasted one day in the good ol' USA. [qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif[/qimg]

Yep they just put too much value on human life there, They need a proper murder rate like the US has.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This thread discusses the matter in some detail. I believe the relevant law is the "Castle Doctrine". In some states the law states that it is acceptable to use deadly force to protect property (even property of a third party in some cases). That these laws exist indicates that the majority of the population in that jurisdiction supports it.

Vanadal Hunting might well be legal in some states.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, but that's where my 2nd Amendment passion takes over. I don't want the government to know just how well-armed I am JUST IN CASE we ever have to rise up against them.... which is what our founding fathers decided was the second most important right for us to have for that very reason.

This is why we need to cut all the crap about guns and bring bombs and other more serious weapons into this. If you want an uprising handguns suck.

So put your life where you mouth is and be for the legalization of explosive in much broader contexts. Let people carry handgrenades for self defense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Drudgewire you made comments that having hobbies that make people affraid is something you enjoy. Well it would seem that many here would feel unconfortable with you owning guns not because of the guns but because you own them.

 

[Autolite]

I need a background check to buy a gun from a dealer. Some states ban certain guns, so if I bring some of my guns that are legal to own in Washington to California, I am subject to felony jail time. Ownership of some weapons require that I obtain the local sheriff's signature on an ATF form which can be denied for any reason. Some weapons are taxed($200) more than they are worth. My carry permit is not accepted in most states. Ranb

I think what causes much of the agravation between gun and anti-gun types is a lack of understanding of the gun control laws and their effectiveness. I sometimes get the impression that many gun control advocates are actually quite unfamiliar with what laws are already in place and then they scream for more laws.

The frustion for legitimite, responsible gun owners, (who are the overwhelming vast majority of people who possess firearms), is the seeming endless number of hoops one must jump through with respect to gun purchases, transport and the like.

As Ranb illustrates, you almost need a law degree to stay on top of the mass of various restrictions across the country. At least here in Canada our gun control laws, being as tight as they are, are federal regulations and there are really are no variances between the provinces.

As a matter of fact, there are some instances where the U.S. laws are more restictive than Canadian laws. I can pretty much transport any of my guns across Canada provided I keep my licences and transport documents in order. I found out, however, that with most of the guns I own, I wouldn't even be permitted to bring them into the States should I decide to move there (this due to the U.S. laws).

So the situation arises where responsible people are made to comply with a mass of ineffectual laws knowing that irresponsible people are going to ignore the laws anyway. Many gun control folks see the ultimate solution as a complete prohibition of private firearms ownership. The problem with this is that they will have succeeded in taking all the guns out of the hands of responsibile, law abiding people who were never the problem to begin with.

Criminal types, "nutters", whoever will always be able to acquire guns no matter what laws are in place. Black market guns from other countries, weapons stolen from the military (which HAS happened), or homemade firearms. Guns are not going to go away, ever. Many people seem unable to grasp this little factoid of reality.

So what's the solution? I honestly don't have one. I only know that guns themselves are not the problem and adding more gun control laws will be just as ineffective as the gun control laws that we already have in force.

And the beat goes on...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Someone did mention recently that targeting shooting with ICBMs could be a sport, and I have to admit I found that kinda appealing...

It is not like an ICBM needs a nuclear warhead for target practice.

But my point is that target practice and other recreational usage is not a particularly good justification for a weapon by itself because that can be made for any weapon.

As few people are for entirely removing laws regarding what weapons can be legally owned by private individuals, there must come a time when a weapons use is not justifiable as recreation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure what you mean by more strictly controlled, but I disagree with your comment.

I can walk into any car dealership and buy a car. No license, background check or permit needed, just get someone to drive it home for me.

Um, they will let you drive an unregistered uninsured car with no plates off the lot?

Are these dealerships asking for lawsuits?

 

[Autolite]

People, but their wants do not nessacarily get represented, I have never heard it claimed that a majority of people where in favor of the 18th amendment. Why did you cut out the part where I cited an example of laws being made that the majority did not want?

I must confess that I am not fully conversant with the inner workings of the American system of government. I was making the assumption that the law makers, the politicians, were elected to represent the wants of the electorate. Your post implies that populace elects politicians who will do the opposite of what they desire. Is this in fact the case? Admittedly, I am unfamiliar and rather confused with such an arrangement...

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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

So the efficiency of a gun versus a knife is meaningless?

So the regular parade of nutters in the USA who kill people with guns would kill the same number of people or more with a knife? Not really a sensible comment is it.

It is even more efficient to use a tactical nuclear weapon to kill but it would seem you don't feel that would be meaningful either. I wonder why the US is getting so steamed up about Iran then?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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.

Good point.

I don't think the citizens of the UK are ready to be part of a society where the penalty for stealing two cases of beer is death. I don't even think that happens in Iran.

 

[fuelair]

I must confess that I am not fully conversant with the inner workings of the American system of government. I was making the assumption that the law makers, the politicians, were elected to represent the wants of the electorate. Your post implies that populace elects politicians who will do the opposite of what they desire. Is this in fact the case? Admittedly, I am unfamiliar and rather confused with such an arrangement...

There is a good chance that Democrats in Congress will be bending over for Shrub in the near future and passing a bill that will, among other things, protect phone companies from legal suits for harm/damage and such to protect the government's artificial/declared right to listen in on my phone calls (due to that, many of them to really good friends include discussions of Shrub's family history , his adventures with his b-boys and their experiments with non-human life forms in the reproductive arts. The people who perform the classic joke "The Aristocrats" would be proud of our version!!!) so when I (who loathe any terrorists - not matter their source) I am discussing destroying (pick a favorite US spot) with one of the Iranian jack-offs they can catch me at it. Oh!! Wait!! I would be happy to shoot or torture any of the Irania jack-offs so leave my calls alone!!. Out side of shrub, his bboys and the phone companies, I do not know anyone in the US who wants the phone companies to be protected from lawsuits from an act that is a violation of what they are normally supposed to do. If passed, your example is given.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Oh my! That would look interesting printed on a police recruitment poster. Are you suggesting that we should disarm the police? We can't have them endangering the rest of the population now can we???

The police chose to enter the job knowing the dangers. Dangers would still be present even if criminals didn't use guns. As I said before, if you're not happy with the dangers inherent in a job the answer is simple - don't take the job.

The police in the US and the UK have indeed shot innocent people and have thereby endangered the general population in some cases.

The rate of arming should be related to the level of guns a society allows its population to have access to. The USA clearly allows a very substantial gun availability and in doing so accepts the rate of culling of its citizens otherwise it would do something about the availability of guns.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

AFAIK, under Canadian law it is illegal to murder somebody with a knife. However, as with our mass of ineffectual gun laws, murderers haven't been keeping a heads up with the rules...

And obviously murderers haven't been keeping a heads up on murder law.

The implication of your comment is that therefore, because murder still happens, we shouldn't have ineffectual laws against murder?

Not very sensible is it?

 

[DJW]

Good point.

I don't think the citizens of the UK are ready to be part of a society where the penalty for stealing two cases of beer is death. I don't even think that happens in Iran.

I don't really think the U.S. wants you to be a part of our gun culture, nor do we want to be part of a society that thinks hooliganism is just part of the football scene. The Iran comment is just silly E.J. Yeah, you might not get whacked for two cases of beer...well actually you might....but regardless, you will get whacked for your sexual orientation or political mindset.