How do you feel about guns?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by lixluke, Jul 31, 2006.



  1. Have no place in this world. Should be abolished like slavery.

    33 vote(s)
  2. Are every human's right.

    57 vote(s)
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    God's Plan

    And I don't know exactly what to say to that. I'm afraid, "Good for you," would sound sarcastic at this point in the discussion. To the other, "That's your business," true as it may be, sounds even worse. It's not that I don't care, but part of that is the idea that it's your life and, well, how many details of your life are mine to care about. The wishy-washy zone goes on and on, as I'm sure you can imagine.

    What about the idea of mandatory licensing and testing to use any firearm? As in, "not just the concealed weapons"?

    There is also the anecdotal communication I received from a friend--as in, he looked into it, I didn't--many years ago that it was easier in Oregon to get a concealed weapons permit for a gun than a knife. The circumstances explained to me made it sound rather quite impossible to make the knife I carried at the time legal. If you've ever encountered my occasional that police are more afraid of knives than guns, or the anecdote that explains that point, this is the backstory.

    Sorry it wasn't so easy to just say, "Congratulations".

    I would like to focus for a moment on the phrase, "to a person properly using their weapon":

    - What does this phrase mean?​

    I would actually like to agree that "a person properly using their weapon" is of no risk to me. But do you recall those examples I've listed about "responsible gun owners" who, well, behave badly? That's the point: they see themselves as "properly using their weapons".

    Additionally, I'm not sure how to take the apparent juxtaposition of "properly" and "criminal". There are plenty of circumstances insurance could be good for: what if you shoot the wrong person, or shoot a person accidentally? Even gun control point #4 (which plan does not include mandatory insurance) doesn't go so far in its assignation of absolute responsibility to the shooter as does the opposition of proper and criminal. So the guy in Texas who shot through a closed door and killed a student who was attempting to ask directions was acquitted of any crime by a jury. Good for him. But there is something amiss about the "shoot first, ask questions never, or later if you're a bad shot" mentality. There seems to be a middle ground that would be good to have insurance for just in case the unfortunate target survives long enough to sue you.

    An interesting suggestion. See the next section for further considerations:

    Why explosives? How does your reading of the Second Amendment justify that abridgment of rights?

    Oh, and I did read the bit about "individual hazard". Cute, but it doesn't work. It seems to me that if the point of an automatic weapon is about individual targets, you're wasting ammunition and creating secondary hazards.

    You're right. The sex industry was dangerous once. Coming out of a grocery store in Eugene, Oregon, we were accosted by a drunk and had to restrain a friend from getting in a fight. He had a prior for mutual assault, and we didn't think it worth it for our buddy to go back to jail over a loudmouthed drunk. Oh, yeah, the sex industry? We were on our way to a strip club at the time. I suppose it would have felt safer if I'd had a gun and just shot the bastard. Of course, and our buddy. Because he was scary-pissed off for a while.

    I remember one time a pot dealer in Salem, Oregon, revealed that he was packing heat. Want to know how to avoid violence in the drug subculture? One important step is to simply make a note that he's packing, and never buy from him. Anyone who has to establish the appearance of danger up front is not someone to trust when there's a bogus war afoot. The greatest danger I've faced over the years seems consistently to be wearing official badges. And I'm not about to start shooting cops. Even if I thought it a good idea to keep a gun around.

    The point being that whatever difficulty you have accepting the idea that in my years associating to various degrees with two statistically dangerous subsections of society a gun would have been of use exactly zero times is your own problem. That's why I raised the point in the first place. In the first place, it is inevitable that those who choose to carry firearms for defense carry their fears closer to the surface than those who choose not to. But what I can't understand is how it is that all these "responsible gun owners" find life in law-abiding America so damnably more frightening and dangerous than the drug subculture. I can even go so far as to use the phrase "international drug trade", but making any special point of that circumstance would be exaggerating its influence. Of course, I didn't write the law that classifies my proximity as active participation. (What? I live in the Seattle area; we get some good dope down from our lovely neighbors in B.C., and I thank 'em kindly.)

    There are reasons I find the American gun culture creepy and bizarre.

    Consider one of the reasons punks have always been outsiders, even when punk was vogue. When people found them distasteful, the punks gave folks the finger. There is no subcultural wonder so pathetic as a self-proclaimed punk blubbering about, "Why doesn't anybody like me?" (That's what goths are for, damn it.)

    So as the gun debate continues, here's part of the problem: The gun advocacy voice employs the politics of fear. So does the control side, but that's another issue. The problem is when life doesn't scare somebody to the same degree. After a while, with so many go-rounds of the rhetoric that the words lose meaning, the gun advocates start to seem like these quivering, frustrated twits who think that just because they're scared of their own shadow, so should everyone be afraid of themselves. The compensation is a machismo so heavy on the cheese that we're all amazed. Yes. It's strange and creepy, and just a little scary the way any appearance of psychiatric instability can put people off. See, because not only do you seem strange and creepy, but, as you've reminded us, you're armed. Most of the strange and creepy people I encounter aren't packing guns.

    But here's the thing: despite all the bluster and condemnation and machismo, people are somehow being unfair when they point out the bluster, condemnation, and machismo? It's kind of like watching the punk who needs to dye his 'hawk jet black, let it hang over his face, and start buying Bauhaus albums and door-size posters of The Cure.

    Stop, please, for at least a moment, calling bullshit at everything that confuses you. I'm just asking you to think about the idea that, while I can't keep a straight face while asserting that the drug and sex subcultures are somehow safer than law-abiding Americans, the comparison does suggest something about how people see the world. Some people perceive enough threats to flash their guns; some shoot through closed doors; and some don't even carry guns. And, yes, there are plenty of degrees between and about.

    I suppose I should consider myself lucky, though. I can't imagine what it would be like to see the world as such a frightening place.

    I wonder if I can blame the fear on Original Sin?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Why licensing for every weapon. If it openly carried there is no need to learn the laws regarding disclosure and disruptive behavior. There is no need to practice reaching under neath layers to get your gun and so forth. As for rifels and shot guns why should they be licensed in such a manner. It is patently obvious who has them and who doesn't.

    I do believe gun safety should be taught in school starting form preschool and any parent who objects should have their kids siezed. I believe this will solve most of our gun accident problems.

    Actually, Knives are more of a danger in a crime. Guns are loud and can generally be heard for some distance. Knives on the other hand are quiet. You can stab a person and if you do it even half way right the first clue will be when someone stumbles across the body. Knives and swords also penetrate kevlar armor as easily as they do thick cloth. Now this is not saying a knife is a better weapon, but in the hands of some who really knows how to use it, well it is a big threat.

    Yeah, I know hard to be happy when there is one less victim in the herd to hide behind.

    See those example you gave were irresponsible improperly using their weaponry. I can see how you made the mistake, but believe me first syllables are important. However for every case you mention I can mention at least a dozen of weapons properly being used.

    But why make it mandatory? That would be restricting guns to the rich. Besides at any time an gun owner can prove they thought their life was endangered the other person should not legally be able to sue. For the times when a you hit a bystander, you were obviously recklessly discharging a fire arm and thus commiting a crime.

    However I do take offense at you ignorance regarding how the vast majority of gun owners operate. The firearm is a weapon a last resort, only used when all other options are exhaust, impractical, or too damn risky. You're attemtping to punish a large group on the indiscretions of a few.

    What if tomorrow they decided that you had to have an extra set of insurance on the car you drive, becuase three people out of thousands had horrific car accidents through fault of their own. You'd howl complain and bitch, and rightly so. Well we're doing the same thing.

    Well, explosives are, like I said too clumsy a weapon. My reading of the 2nd amendment says yes we should be allowed them, but I am more than willing to surrender this one part to free up everything else. Besides It is not actually an abridgement, becuase we'd still be allowed APDS rounds, gas rounds, and a few others. The weapon would still be available.

    Actually the point of the automatic weapon is that you can replace training with number or rounds. Give a novice an M-60 and suddenly he gat get two or three rounds into a target, even if the range, angle , and visibility is bad. It's a weapon of economy. A rich nation can arm many barely trained soldiers with these weapons and they will be effective. Meanwhile a soldier with a semi automatic has to aim, and be wel trained to be anywhere near as effective.

    See, I do understand your claims and am calling bullshit, becuase that is what your claims are. Oh, i have known some dealers who did not use weapons, but they were still controlled by people who did. Law of the 'plex, a power vacuum will be filled.

    And I am going to say this again. I do not carry the weapon becuase I am afraid something might happen. I carry it so that if it does I might have an extra option that will carry me through relatively unharmed. Now I might never actualy fire my weapon t defend myself against an attacker, but i would much rather have the choice of it than not.

    See the pro-gun lobby is like the pro choice lobby. We just want the choice.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I'll call BS. You're a liar. You don't know any dealers.

    (I must admit, this form of argument is rather quite easy. However, rather than continuing to imitate your bizarre evil/no-evil polka, I'll simply say that I'll get back to some of your creepier points, such as indoctrinating children in the niceties and proprieties of violence, when I have more time.)

    I will, however, address one of your points at this time:

    You're actually increasing the chances that something bad might happen. Nothing like feeding your fear/not-fear, right?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    How? When you carry insurance on your car, does that increase your chances of having an accident? Huh?

    Will you please quit resorting to that "fear" tactic/bullshit? You're doing nothing but trying to incite people by pissing them off. ...or is that what you want?????

    If you want to gamble with your life and the lives of your family, then please do so ...don't pay for auto insurance, don't wear seatbelts, etc. But many of us don't like the odds on that gamble, so we do what we can to change the odds in our favor. If you want to take chances with your life, do so ...but don't try to force others to do the same.

    And please ....leave off with the "fear" bullshit, okay?

    Baron Max
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You take offense? Really?

    Your outlook on the reasons for licensing gun owners is curious, especially given your next statement:

    Licensing every, or, as such, any weapon in private hands, would have the effect of formalizing the standards of “responsible gun use”. It seems strange to me that you would object to a standard education and license for gun ownership, but would prefer to spend public money enforcing a mandatory indoctrination of all people to the methods and philosophies of gun use. Do you not see a contradiction there? By the standard I consider appropriate, people who want to carry and use lethal force would be obliged to demonstrate their competency. By the standard you seem to be advocating, even those who don’t want to use guns—don’t even want them around--would be obliged to such an education.

    I am curious, however, as to what that preschool-forward education would look like. One of the problems I have yet to resolve—and, frankly, the gun-advocacy voice of America is of no help in this—is the question of what standard is appropriate. Imagine, for a moment, please:

    So we decide to have a public discussion that is intended to set policy. You and I, and perhaps a few other people agree to a rational public consideration of the issue. We find common ground. As we start to find reasonable conclusions to our inquiries and establish a groundwork for a rational standard, a “responsible gun owner” in the audience stands up and objects: “You shouldn’t punish responsible gun owners,” he says. And suddenly you are regarded as a gun-control liberal looking to punish law-abiding citizens for no reason.​

    This is why I continually drive the point about what it means to be a “responsible gun owner”. We might certainly come to some agreement on a rational standard, but that standard would still violate a number of other people’s idea of what a rational standard is. The diversity of interpretations concerning what constitutes “responsible gun ownership” renders the phrase meaningless. The result is that when someone complains that a policy “punishes responsible gun owners”, they’re simply spewing egotistical hot air: that person feels violated by the standard.

    So, yes, I am indeed curious as to what your idea of a mandatory gun education would look like.

    As to seizing children: if you don’t find that just a bit creepy, intrusive, and controlling, I would consider my regard for the gun-advocacy voice validated to a certain degree. My daughter will soon be four: that someone might sexually abuse her does not suggest that I ought to teach her about condom use. That it might save her life, and the lives of others (e.g. HIV) does not suggest that I ought to instruct her in the methods and philosophies of dildos. You might as well seize my daughter because I haven’t taught her how to use a Pearl Driver.

    My issue with knives and guns is twofold: I must be absolutely certain that I must use the weapon—e.g. no stabbing through closed doors—and if, by some strange chance I miss my target, the odds of hitting an innocent bystander are considerably lower. The odds of hitting an innocent bystander two-hundred feet away are nil.

    But I don’t carry a knife anymore for the same reason I don’t wish to carry a gun. The odds speak against it.

    That sort of bitterness only degrades the gun-advocacy voice. Besides, having encountered your philosophy on gun use, I’m not sure the fact that you’re licensed to carry is any real comfort to anyone.

    See the above section where I ask you to imagine a scenario. The thing is, Mr. Scott, that there are plenty of irresponsible gun owners who consider themselves responsible. I’m very much aware that the examples I’ve given represent irresponsible gun use, but these people would still complain about gun policies that “punish responsible gun owners”. I’m more interested at this point in what you think constitutes responsible gun ownership. Perhaps we’ll find you strike a common chord with many of your fellows. Perhaps some will think you excessively cautious. Others might think you’re being irresponsible in some way.

    The gun advocates pretend a certain solidarity, but also seem to resent when their public representation is assigned that same solidarity. People are aware of diversity, but gun advocates aren’t doing a good job right now of helping people perceive and understand that diversity. Rather, the gun voice tends to muddle the issue as if there is a comfort in being vague and aloof; although, as noted, it tends to get upset if people respond to the image put forth.

    I do not propose to make it mandatory. For the record, I think mandatory auto insurance is a crock at least as long as insurance companies are for-profit enterprises. As to a gun owner proving they thought their life was in danger, that’s why it becomes an issue when gun advocates sound so creepy and paranoid. If asking directions is perceived as a threat to life, there’s a problem. Should I teach my daughter, “Don’t go near anyone who owns a gun; you never know when they’ll think you’re threatening them”? I would think that rather extreme, wouldn’t you?

    As to hitting a bystander, I’ve known people who consider themselves responsible gun owners who would disagree with you given various circumstances. And there is a gray area as long as life is solely about the individual, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. I would generally agree that, “For the times when a you hit a bystander, you were obviously recklessly discharging a fire arm and thus commiting a crime”, and part of my opinion of guns and their owners is that the law does not reflect this standard. Some ridiculous “crimes” (e.g. “accidental” or “collateral” shootings) pass without prosecution. I’ve mentioned those before: an infant in the next flat killed by a man cleaning his gun; a preschool teacher holding a crying child struck by a bullet “accidentally” discharged by a firearms company representative; parents leaving a loaded rifle accessible to unsupervised children ages five and three.

    Your offense is noted. Punishing a large group?

    I do believe gun safety should be taught in school starting form preschool and any parent who objects should have their kids siezed.

    All I’m asking for is that those who want to use a gun certify that they are capable. You would punish people for, well, we don’t know yet, do we? That’s why the details of your mandatory gun education are important. Because my daughter will learn to shoot when I decide she should, or else she is old enough to decide for herself. Ye gads!: Protectors of Liberty, what have Ye wrought?

    You take offense? You take offense?

    A gun is designed to kill. A car is not. Theoretic “extra” insurance is an interesting proposition. You’re howling and bitching, apparently, about something that isn’t real.

    What does the clumsiness of the weapon matter to you? My reading of the Constitution would put that sort of notion under the umbrella of what is necessary to the security of a free state; in fact, this is in my opinion the whole point of gun control. Whether people are being shot in robberies or for asking directions, it’s not good for the security of a free state.

    Well, we can save money indoctrinating children and give them automatic weapons instead. More seriously, though, would you propose that replacing training with number of rounds is conducive to security?

    The only commonality is that there is someone out there who believes that either guns or abortion are intended to terminate life.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    What are you afraid of? (Huh?)

    Given that a firearm is more likely to cause accidental damage than fulfill its intended purpose of protection, I’m surprised that you can’t see the point. Or maybe I’m not. Perhaps unintended consequences don’t count in your book as bad. Of course, if you can duck any bad consequences by saying, “It was an accident,” or, “I thought I was in danger, I swear!” I don’t see why you would worry about those outcomes.

    Gambling with one’s life by not wearing a seatbelt, for instance, simply requires apathy. Gambling with one’s life by carrying a firearm requires the effort of getting a gun, carrying it, cleaning it, &c. The examples don’t match up. Gambling with your family’s life, depending on how one views family relationships, is similar. I can certainly gamble with their lives through apathy. And I can also go out of my way to bring a gun into the home.

    As long as fear is a justification held up by the gun-advocacy voice, it is a fair consideration. That gun owners seem to me a creepy and paranoid bunch is based on my assessment of the arguments and explanations they put forward: criminals might get you, the government is coming, someone might ask directions . . . .

    If gun advocates would make reasonable arguments, they would not seem so afraid, and the nature of their fears would recede to the edges of the discussion.
  10. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    How do you figure that? I really less likely to be mugged becuase I don't carry a weapon? No, statistics proove opposite. Am I less likely to be succesfully raped if leave my gun at home? Again statistics say no. Am less likely to make a feet first trip to the morgue becuase I didn't carry? Again , no the statistics do not support that argument. So do you mean it would be more likely that I would survive another day and respond to your feeble and completely wrong arguments? Is that the bad thing you mean?
  11. Sandoz Girl Named Sandoz Registered Senior Member

    How do I feel about guns?

    They're fun!
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Which statistics?
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    (Insert Title Here)

    Contrary to your dedicated efforts, Mr. Scott, there are far worse things in the world than putting up with you. I'm simply referring to the fact that a gun kept for defense is more likely to be involved in domestic violence, accidental shootings, or a suicide than it is to stop a crime.

    Carrying a gun "just in case" actually increases the potential for harm. As such, it doesn't really seem about protecting yourself, but, rather, gratifying yourself.
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    There you are ....gambling again! And worse, you're trying to force me and others to take exactly the same gamble that you do. That ain't nice, is it?

    And as to stopping crime, it only has to happen once for it to be worth the gamble of carrying it. Just like auto insurance ....many people carry it for most of their lives without a single claim. Then ...WHAM... they need insurance and they have it. Nice, huh?

    More gambling, Tiassa?? You seem to love gambling it an addiction with you? And do you always try to make others take the same gambles that you do?

    I know a guy who carries a rabbit's foot for luck. It ain't gonna' help him at all in case of an assault or robbery, but he feels better when he has it. Should I tell him that his gamble is pretty stupid?

    And, Tiassa, part of what you're saying is true with me and some of my friends is somewhat gratifying to have a chance, however slim, of saving myself or my family from a possible assault or robbery or murder. Sure, it's gratifying. Is that wrong? Do you do nothing to gratify yourself?

    Baron Max
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Gratify this ....


    You need to answer for a couple things:

    - And worse, you're trying to force me and others to take exactly the same gamble that you do.

    - And do you always try to make others take the same gambles that you do?

    What the hell are you talking about? All I'm trying to compel anyone to do is be honest for a change.

    You almost pulled it off, though:

    I masturbate. I smoke pot. Tonight I'll drink one of the better beers on the planet, and sheerly for the pleasure of it.

    But like you said, "it only has to happen once". Sure, there may be an innocent person dead, but at least you managed to gratify yourself.

    Keep working at it, Baron. Honesty is the cornerstone of trust. This, of course, is part of what's creepy about gun owners: As my discussion with you and some others in this topic reiterates, it seems rather a gamble to trust them.
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Many more people are killed in car accidents due to drugs and alcohol than are ever killed with handguns! So all of your arguments, you should be against anyone using drugs or alcohol ...MUCH more than you are against handguns.

    No innocent person needs to be killed at all ...and I don't plan to kill any innocent people. Accidents? Hey, there are billions of accidents every year all over the world that have nothing to do with handguns, so...?'d be just one more of many innocent lives lost. Big fuckin' deal in the overall scheme of things, huh?

    And your condescending tone is just about more than I can handle. Is there some way that you could control that a little more? If not, you're becoming a true waste of my time becasue of that. You talk about honesty, then do it using that condescending tone ...I don't like that, okay?

    Baron Max
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Quit whining, Baron

    I approve of laws against driving under the influence. Even after having come head-to-head with those laws.

    If you planned to kill an innocent person, that would be a crime. I thought we were supposed to be considering your argument in the law-abiding sense.

    As long as you get to gratify yourself, it doesn't matter?

    How about this? Stuff it, Baron. Quit whining. Perhaps you could try being honest for a while, and not inventing things to argue about? Dig a hole if you want, but don't tell me you're climbing a mountain while you're about it.
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Kiss my ass, Tiassa!! And know for sure that you won't ever get my guns, nor will any new gun control laws be passed in the USA unless the gun advocates approve of it.

    So take your bullshit-reasoning and stick it up your ass.

    Baron Max
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Honesty is easier, Baron, I promise

    I think it would probably have been less stressful for you if you had chosen to simply answer the question: Where do you get this crap?

    Of course, I'm not you. Maybe inventing concepts to argue against and then getting pissed off about it when I ask you where you're getting those notions is the less stressful option for you. As one familiar with the power of conscience and self-persecution, I cannot help but extend my sympathies.

    Good luck, sir.
  20. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    What I object to is the premise licensing falls under and what implications it brings. A license implies privilage. Making it a privilage implies that it can be revoked. Now you may not agree, but gun ownder ship and carraige is a right. It's our second amendment, just after Freedom of Expression and Religious Freedom. So important our forefather worte it in it's own amendment and denied our government the ability to abridge our right to weaponry in any way. Licensing to me is repugnate to me on too many levels to list.

    As for standardized education, that is fine. I believe that EVERY America should be taught the basics of firearm safety and use. Why? Well aren't we all taught not to go near powerlines, or to avoid drinking bleach, to report a gas leak when we smell it, and so on. Teaching everyone how not to misuse a gun will save the lives of gun accident victims.

    Well, first when designing an actul syllabus only people who have an actual functional knowledge of gun safety, operation and use will be allowed to have input. People with no experience and are geneally ignorant can watch but must reamin silent. If you think this is harsh think of it this way, would you listen to a person who has never seen a horse in person about Riding safety. Would you trust a person who has never ridden a motorcycle to teach you to ride? Would you let a man who can't read write a users manual? No, you'd go to someone who knows what they are doing and you ignore the others. Same thing here.

    First we take the approach of teaching children what a gun is and what it does. This can be applied to adults as well. We teach children that the gun is not a toy, it is a tool. It needs to be used properly. We teach them that if they find an unattended gun they should leave it where it is and fetch an adult. If no adult is available the child must be made to understand not to touch, move, and if possible not be in the same area as a gun.

    That is the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever seen. I do not expect you to teach her about condom use, but how about alerting you if your neighbor has been touching her inappropiately? How is that different than teaching your daughter to come fetch you if she finds a gun in your lawn? Aren't they both things you would want to know about. If not then perhaps you really do need your kids seized.

    You keep harping about improper use of weaponry when I keep agreeing that is a problem. Now however your characterizations are well off. Besides like I said, proper knife use is acquired skill and you have to pray that your opponent even semi trained or is big enough that a single stab is only going to piss him off.

    There goes that math dyslexia again, or perhaps you are a masochist.

    Are you kidding? i wasn't bitter. I was condescending. You are thick.

    Well, in my book as well as in most peoples, if you don't start shit you're pretty responsible. Now of course there is also the way you respond how the shit getting started. If you meet a challenge with the minimal amount of violence to end the confronttation then you are responsible. Here are some examples:

    Let's say you're a 90 pound woman and this hulking 300 pound athletic guy decides that no isn't the answer he likes. Now you could fight him and may even try for a moment, but unless you suddenly summon your inner Jackie CHan and Bruce Lee then your pretty much toast. You could try dialling 911 but that's an average of 30 minutes. You could scream for help and pray someone hears you. Or you can pull out your snubnose .38 and shove it nose first inot his crotch with a quippy line about changing his religion or just shoot him. Anything short of just shooting him is super responsible. He could cahnge his mind and leave, no lives lost. trying other things then shooting him is still responsible, and even just shooting him is fairly okay.

    Now your at your home and some one knocks at the door and is obnoxiously pounding away and cussing. There is no way he can get in. Responsible methods would be anything short of firing through the door. Even caming you got a gun and then racking the slide is a good idea. In this case actually shooting is were you stop being responsible.

    Hey, I have seen how some people ask for direction. It ain't pretty. I don't agree that the guy should have shot through the door, and I think he was insane, but there are times when the person pounding on the door doesn't seem as innoccent as he is. It has to be taken on case for case basis.

    Just about every one is capable of using a gun, Tiassa, that's the beauty of it as a weapon. Even the infirm can protect thmselves against the predators of our world. I have nothing wrong with the classes. What I have a problem with you notion that weapon carraige is a privilage. It isn't, it's a right and one we should not forsake. As for gun education, would you rather your daughter play with a gun she finds in her friends house, or would you prefer she knows that such things are not toys. As for shooting, later in life she should know becuase between 15 and 50 she is militia same as you are.

    Licensing works like that. It's a method of abridging the rights of the poor, or are you too thick to realize that.

    Okay, so you are stupid, good to know. I was merely adressing your claim that automatic weapons are for multiple targets. No, that is not why they were invented. Plus you try to claim I am indostrinating kids by teaching them gun safety. I guess in your opinion, it is indoctrination to teach them reading, writing, math, honesty, and so on.

    Mmm-hmm... God I feel like I have come to a battle of moronity unarmed.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Hmmm... something about pots and kettles ....
  22. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Actually read the statistic again. It says that a gun in the home is more likely to involved in domestic violence, accidental shooting, and suicide than it is to kill an intruder. Now it does not add in intruders scared off or wounded. The statistic also lumps when the abused shoots the abuser in with involved in domestic violence. So the staistic is skewed greatly and intentionally misused by gun control advocates.
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps instead of going on and on about this and that tangent, we could attempt to boil to issue down to its fundamentals, model their relationship and attempt to determine something from the relationship.

    First I'll just list off a few terms/concepts that seem related. Feel free to clarify the forthcoming psuedo randomness:

    Freedom is impaired by denial of gun ownership.
    The stakes go up to life and death any time guns are involved.
    People who feel their life is in danger should be able to defend themselves by any reasonable means.
    People who aren't actually a threat do not deserve to die or incur serious injury over someone else's poor judgment or mishandling of a firearm.
    If guns are illegal, then only criminals have guns.
    If guns are legal, good and/or completely innocent people can easily get hurt.
    Some people can handle guns responsibly.
    Probably more people cannot, hard to say. Seems as such from the statistics presented.
    Shooting guns can be fun.
    I'm glad some people hunt, and I'm glad some people know how to use guns.
    Guns represent a large risk in that since the stakes are life and death, any mistakes in their use can be ridiculously amplified (but same is true with cars).
    Depending on what seem like rare circumstances to me, the lack of guns could represent a large risk.


    And for a second I thought I could be succinct and complete, or at least close.

    *got nuthin*

Share This Page