Why are guns made to kill?

[E.J.Armstrong]

I suppose that's a valid POV. I mean really. When you consider it, the brutal stabbing deaths of a handful of "pimply youths" is a small price to pay for maintaining the illusion of public safety that our current gun control policies provide. I am more than certain that the victims' parents would feel the same...

Er no.

My solution is quite simple. Don't take the job. If every one did that I'm sure the company's involved would quickly implement additional safety precautions.

I mean if you're going to arm people every time there's a theft how long before heavy assault rifles, which provide even more protection, are deemed necessary in case an entire car load of tooled up thieves arrive.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

No, I don't. I keep mine away from those who shouldn't have access to them and carry mine in a safe position that prevents discharge.

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem and never have been. And if I ever come up against a "nutter" I have an equalizer. Have fun enlightening the one you come up against out of killing you.

Have you ever heard of the word 'theft'. What happens if the 'baddies' get the draw on you? Presumably you would hand over your weapon thereby adding to the delight of nations with additional weaponry in circulation amongst the 'bad' fraternity.

Responsible gun owners have always been part of the problem as their guns regularly get stolen and used in culling US citizens. That is simply what happens when so many guns are allowed into the community.

And if that person is someone you just happen to not like. I would not want to meet you in any circumstances if I knew you were carrying a gun because I could not trust you not to throw a wobbly. My point is also made in that I asked if you had a firefight with a nutter. In failing to answer that directly I think we can take it that you never have. Your owning a gun is a danger to your society.

I attended school in Belfast during the height of the 'troubles' and guess what, I never needed a gun. I would have been carrying a gun for decades under your scenario and the only result would have been an increased danger to my society because of the danger of that gun being stolen.

 

[Drudgewire]

Have you ever heard of the word 'theft'. What happens if the 'baddies' get the draw on you? Presumably you would hand over your weapon thereby adding to the delight of nations with additional weaponry in circulation amongst the 'bad' fraternity.

Responsible gun owners have always been part of the problem as their guns regularly get stolen and used in culling US citizens. That is simply what happens when so many guns are allowed into the community.

And if that person is someone you just happen to not like. I would not want to meet you in any circumstances if I knew you were carrying a gun because I could not trust you not to throw a wobbly. My point is also made in that I asked if you had a firefight with a nutter. In failing to answer that directly I think we can take it that you never have. Your owning a gun is a danger to your society.

I attended school in Belfast during the height of the 'troubles' and guess what, I never needed a gun. I would have been carrying a gun for decades under your scenario and the only result would have been an increased danger to my society because of the danger of that gun being stolen.

And that's you. Nobody forces you to carry a gun. You feel safer without one. I feel safer with one. Thankfully both of us are within our legal rights to live according to the way we feel safest.

As for my gun being taken, there's no outside signs I'm carrying. If someone "gets the drop on me" I can fire from the pocket that would look like the wallet or car keys I was about to hand over. And in that instance, I'd have to make the decision whether I felt I was just being robbed or something worse was about to happen. If I thought it was option A, I'd probably go around the gun to give up some money underneath. If there was any chance it was option B, I'd need to buy a new pair of pants because there'd be three big holes in my left pocket.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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.

I really don't want to be part of US gun culture and never have, but thanks anyway.

I really don't think there is an enormous lobby in the UK demanding football hooliganism - unlike mass lobbys in the US demanding access to guns. Interestingly, the rate of mass murder from hooliganism is somewhat lower than the regular and on going cull of US citizens from the vast arsenal of guns that lies around your society, but then you knew that already.

The Iran comment was also spot on. A grand jury decided that a women should not go on trial after shooting someone in the back. That is just as scary as getting whacked for sexual orientation or political mindset.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

And that's you. Nobody forces you to carry a gun. You feel safer without one. I feel safer with one. Thankfully both of us are within our legal rights to live according to the way we feel safest.

My not carrying a gun makes my society safer.

I notice yet another mass murder by a gunman has happened in the USA - as predicted. The only uncertainty with all the ones to come is when, not if.

 

[Drudgewire]

My not carrying a gun makes my society safer.

I notice yet another mass murder by a gunman has happened in the USA - as predicted. The only uncertainty with all the ones to come is when, not if.

Really? Six people dead, and he took the time to reload with impunity. If someone could have fired back the body count would have been much lower. In fact, it may have never happened at all since he couldn't be assured he was the only person armed.

"Gun free zones" = "fish in a barrel"

 

[volatile]

Really? Six people dead, and he took the time to reload with impunity. If someone could have fired back the body count would have been much lower. In fact, it may have never happened at all since he couldn't be assured he was the only person armed.

"Gun free zones" = "fish in a barrel"

Rather than upping the ante and making everyone else less safe, why not go the other direction and make guns harder to get?

I simply don't get the logic that says more guns = less shootings. In fact, in another curent gun thread, it was pointed out that a gunman shot dead people at a town meeting, including two armed citizens (off duty police officers). The presence of armed people seems to act as neither a deterrent nor a safety net, despite the Hollywood good guy / bad guy fantasy that seems to prevail amongst gun owners.

 

[Ranb]

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

I should have said driver's license. If I load it on a truck and have someone take it home for me, I can do that without insurance. No way around the registration when buying from a dealer as far as I know.

Ranb

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Oh I agree with this, and more national laws and fewer local ones are needed. Local laws for one do little to deal with how guns get into the community as a whole, especially for illegal purposes.

But it is kind of funny that recently one of the gun dealers that Mayor Blumberg was suing for selling guns illegally that end up in criminal hand, who counter-sued for defamation of character was recently indited for doing exactly that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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...

Not the opposite of what they desire, but people rarely have desires that match perfectly, and those can mean that the elected officials do not represent the average people in some issues.

How marijuana got made illegal is a good example of lobying and other methods that did not nessacarily represent the views of the comunity.

That is a problem with representitive democracy, you need to convince far fewer people to make a law if those are the right people.

 

[Drudgewire]

Rather than upping the ante and making everyone else less safe, why not go the other direction and make guns harder to get?

I simply don't get the logic that says more guns = less shootings. In fact, in another curent gun thread, it was pointed out that a gunman shot dead people at a town meeting, including two armed citizens (off duty police officers). The presence of armed people seems to act as neither a deterrent nor a safety net, despite the Hollywood good guy / bad guy fantasy that seems to prevail amongst gun owners.

I'm all about upping the ante. Certainly preferable to having the deck stacked against you.

 

[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?

If you are going to compare knives and guns, then you need to present evidence for it. I did not bring it up here.

I did not make any claims about killers with knives. Have any data for us?

I did not bring up nuclear weapons either. How did you calculate the efficiency of killing with nukes verses killing with bullets? Bullets are cheap, nukes are expensive. I think the death toll directly from nuclear weapons is less than 250,000. Haven't bullets killed many more? Please provide us with more data. Thanks.

Maybe the USA is all steamed up about Iran because the government supported the embarrassing Shah a while ago then let a bunch of Iranian students embarrass the USA even more, and then tripped over themselves when trying to perform a rescue with helicopters in a sand storm. I was a kid when all that happened, so it does not bother me enough to get all steamed up.

Ranb

 

[DJW]

I really don't want to be part of US gun culture and never have, but thanks anyway.

I must have misunderstood your comment that you weren't ready to be a part of a society like ours.

I really don't think there is an enormous lobby in the UK demanding football hooliganism - unlike mass lobbys in the US demanding access to guns. Interestingly, the rate of mass murder from hooliganism is somewhat lower than the regular and on going cull of US citizens from the vast arsenal of guns that lies around your society, but then you knew that already.

No lobbies, but you really shouldn't suggest that there isn't a hooligan culture. You also shouldn't pretend that I was drawing a conclusion about gun deaths and hooliganism. I was merely pointing out that societies like ours have flaws. I don't want yours and you don't want mine. That's a good thing.

The Iran comment was also spot on. A grand jury decided that a women should not go on trial after shooting someone in the back. That is just as scary as getting whacked for sexual orientation or political mindset.

You thought that killing a person over a couple of cases of beer might not occur in Iran. Why you made the comparison, I'm not sure. However, it sure as hell seemed condescending and an attempt to portray my society as somehow worse than theirs. I wouldn't be inclined to make a comment comparing your country to some degenerate theological cesspool, so I thought that maybe you'd like to know that it bothered me. We are a community of fun loving skeptics afterall, right?

I'm not posting in politics am I?

 

[YoPopa]

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

specificaly the law is


So it is a perfect Godwining of the thread.

So Godwin does apply.

Goodwin does not apply. As I already stated, I was not comparing you (or your position, whatever that might be in this case) to the Nazi's in any way. I was asking how you would have advised the Jews had you been WITH them on Kristallnacht. Would I ask a Nazi how they would have advised the Jews? No, I would not. I would ask someone that I thought cared about the Jews. If you can't answer the question from that POV then just take a pass but don't say I was calling you names. Look again at post #191.

 

[YoPopa]

I've had things stolen - both from my home and from my car - but not anything I would consider a family "heirloom". I don't own anything I would consider a family "heirloom". Actually I don't think my parents do either.

Thanks for the reply and sorry I was not able to address it sooner.

My original reason for asking stemmed from your earlier statement:
"It wouldn't upset me too much if possessions of mine were stolen"

I wasn't sure if you were being sincere. I am sure now you were being sincere. If you have never lost something irreplaceable then you can not know how you would feel. In fact, most people feel much more strongly about a home invasion and theft then they thought they would. I remember a thread started by someone who had been ripped off and only money was involved. This person is a very kind gentle respected member of this forum and they felt violated and quite upset by even this. I don't think anyone in the entire thread accused her of not being entitled to her strong feelings even though it was only money.

My mother in-law had a break-in and lost some irreplaceable jewelry she had inherited from her mother & grandmother. The insurance compensation did nothing to ease the pain of that loss. At some point that kind of pain can affect a person's health. For some people it can be the last straw.

 

[baron]

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.

You're a decade out of date. There is no significant football hooliganism in the UK any more. If you'd said hooliganism in general then yes, you're right, it's a big problem. Guns are a different league, however.

 

[Drudgewire]

You're a decade out of date. There is no significant football hooliganism in the UK any more. If you'd said hooliganism in general then yes, you're right, it's a big problem. Guns are a different league, however.

Again, if my life isn't threatened I'm personally not pulling a gun.

But I can't say I mind living in a society where stupid punks who'd run up to people and punch them so their equally stupid buddy can get it on his cell phone would have a real chance of being taught the hardest of hard lessons on civility.

 

[Autolite]

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

Yes, precisely. I am much more in favour of effectual laws against murder. Actually, the implication was that ineffectual laws serve only to maintain the illusion of public security. I will try and illustrate with the following example.

I own a few handguns that where manufactured with a 13 round magazine capacity. These handguns are second world war issue (two German and one Canadian) that have considerable historic value, not to mention the monetary value which for the Canadian model is quite considerable.

Several years ago, 1994 IIRC, Canada passed a law than no handgun was to have more than a 10 round magazine capacity (I beleive that there is a similar rule in the States as well). The intention of this rule was to limit the number of rounds that could be fired before reloading should the gun be employed with unlawful intent.

In order to comply, I had to weld a permanent restrictor block into the magazine of the pistol and then weld the base-plate permanently closed. This law has now defaced what were once was museum quality WWII artifacts (which I actually intend to have placed in a museum later in life).

So now we have an inane, ludicrous law that only a severely delusional person could believe would deter a criminal from performing a robbery or a "nutter" from shooting up a school. Does any reasonable, thinking individual honestly believe that someone planning to hold up a bank is going to be detered because the new law prohibits them from carrying out the crime with only ten rounds in their pistol magazine? Such logic is convoluted well beyond the belief of any rational human being.

When will people wake up and start dealing with the criminals instead of vilifying responsible gun owners???

 

[Drudgewire]

Several years ago, 1994 IIRC, Canada passed a law than no handgun was to have more than a 10 round magazine capacity (I beleive that there is a similar rule in the States as well). The intention of this rule was to limit the number of rounds that could be fired before reloading should the gun be employed with unlawful intent.

California and maybe a couple of other states have the 10 round magazine rule.

Thankfully I don't live in one of those states so with one in the chamber my FNP-9 can get off 17 shots before a reload.

 

[Ranb]

Hawaii is one of those ten round magazine states. It says that a standard (or high capacity in their words) capacity magazine can be modified to hold ten rounds or less to comply with the law. This modification was legal as long as the magazine was not readily restorable to greater than ten round capacity.

The question on many gun owners minds was; "What does readily restore mean?" It was one thing to know the definitions from the dictionary, quite another to know what the police and courts thought they meant. When I asked the police and other knowledgeable people, they said the police enforce the law, the courts interpret it. I think this means that everyone was waiting for someone to be arrested for not properly blocking their magazine to less than ten rounds. I did not want to be the poor schmuck to test the law, but I just went with a metal block riveted into the bottom plate of the magazine. It worked until I left Hawaii and moved to Washington where I promptly restored the magazines to their normal capacity.

Ranb