Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[Bunz]

You can pussy-foot around the point all you wish and it would not even amount to a scratch or a dent on the entire argument.

I said, guns are MADE for a specific use - to kill another person. That you may use it for sport does not diminish this fact.

And assuming that there are guns that do not fall into this general principle -- a glue gun or a stapler gun, perhaps -- common sense would tell you that this is not the subject matter of debate.

HA! Most guns in private use, the far majority are designed for sporting use. The fact they could be used to hurt someone does not diminish this fact.
You are factually wrong on all levels in your sentiments that guns are only designed to kill people.

 

[numinus]

HA! Most guns in private use, the far majority are designed for sporting use. The fact they could be used to hurt someone does not diminish this fact.
You are factually wrong on all levels in your sentiments that guns are only designed to kill people.

HA yourself.

If gun manufacturers intended guns to be used SOLELY for sport, they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

Consider this carefully -- a small metal projectile designed to travel at 300 to 1800 m/s and can be delivered with uncanny precision. Some were designed to explode upon impact. Some were designed to deliver an impulse strong enough to stop a man in his tracks.

What other logical purpose do you suppose it is meant to fulfill, hmmm?

 

[Bunz]

HA yourself.

If gun manufacturers intended guns to be used SOLELY for sport, they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

Consider this carefully -- a small metal projectile designed to travel at 300 to 1800 m/s and can be delivered with uncanny precision. Some were designed to explode upon impact. Some were designed to deliver an impulse strong enough to stop a man in his tracks.

What other logical purpose do you suppose it is meant to fulfill, hmmm?

My biggest concern is stopping the bear and moose in thier tracks. Then the other is to break clay pidgeons. As for your whole exploding bullet notion, it is bogus. I have never shot a HE round, nor has anyone legally as a civilian.

 

[PLC1]

HA yourself.

If gun manufacturers intended guns to be used SOLELY for sport, they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

Consider this carefully -- a small metal projectile designed to travel at 300 to 1800 m/s and can be delivered with uncanny precision. Some were designed to explode upon impact. Some were designed to deliver an impulse strong enough to stop a man in his tracks.

What other logical purpose do you suppose it is meant to fulfill, hmmm?

Did you ever go hunting?

 

[vyo476]

If gun manufacturers intended guns to be used SOLELY for sport, they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

No one is saying that all guns are designed solely for sport. That's your Straw Man.

Consider this carefully -- a small metal projectile designed to travel at 300 to 1800 m/s and can be delivered with uncanny precision. Some were designed to explode upon impact. Some were designed to deliver an impulse strong enough to stop a man in his tracks.

Consider this carefully -

A Browning BT-99 is a single barrel trap-specific shotgun that is so designed so that it is not practical for any other use (no safety, excessively weighted, excessively long barrel).

It's from one of dahermit's posts. If you wish to sell us on the "intent" of all firearms due to their insidious qualities, you must take into account all firearms.

And you must take into account intent of production. There are plenty of guns out there that are masterful killing machines - the AK-47, one of the most prevalent weapons in the world (there are more of them in Africa today than there are people); the Uzi, an extremely effective close-quarters weapon; and the M40 USMC Sniper Rifle, which can knock a flea off a tick from 1000 meters in the right hands. With all these exceptional killing devices, why would Browning make a large, bungling device like the BT-99? I suppose they're just not as good at making guns as, say, the Soviets were.

Or, consider the possibility that guns exist that are not meant for killing other people.

What other logical purpose do you suppose it is meant to fulfill, hmmm?

But, in the interest of actually responding to your question...read above. The logical purpose of some guns is, yes, to kill; there are other purposes for other guns, though, such as recreation. Some people enjoy shooting guns. Given the number of people who enjoy "reality television" in this country, recreational firearms use really shouldn't seem weird.

 

[Bunz]

To add to your point here VYO, of the more than a dozen guns I own, there are three that get fired literally hundreds of times more than the rest. Ill post pictures of the models, you tell me anyone the first impression of use for the firearms.

 

[Bunz]

Then of course there is this model. Of which I own 3 different copies except in different calibers. 7mm Rem. Mag, .338Winchester Mag, and .22-250. If one had to guess, what do you think the purpose of this gun is for.

 

[numinus]

My biggest concern is stopping the bear and moose in thier tracks. Then the other is to break clay pidgeons. As for your whole exploding bullet notion, it is bogus. I have never shot a HE round, nor has anyone legally as a civilian.

That is YOUR concern, not the manufacturer's.

 

[numinus]

Did you ever go hunting?

No. I went fishing a couple of times. What's the point.

 

[numinus]

No one is saying that all guns are designed solely for sport. That's your Straw Man.

That argument was actually offered. Therefore it is NOT a straw man argument. The point, if I am not mistaken, was to demonstrate that guns may be used for other purposes thus diminishing its ORIGINAL purpose which is to kill.

Consider this carefully -



It's from one of dahermit's posts. If you wish to sell us on the "intent" of all firearms due to their insidious qualities, you must take into account all firearms.

I am not selling anything. It is the intent of the manufacture of firearms. That post only reinforces my argument, since self-defense becomes pointless for that particular gun.

And you must take into account intent of production. There are plenty of guns out there that are masterful killing machines - the AK-47, one of the most prevalent weapons in the world (there are more of them in Africa today than there are people); the Uzi, an extremely effective close-quarters weapon; and the M40 USMC Sniper Rifle, which can knock a flea off a tick from 1000 meters in the right hands. With all these exceptional killing devices, why would Browning make a large, bungling device like the BT-99? I suppose they're just not as good at making guns as, say, the Soviets were.

Or, consider the possibility that guns exist that are not meant for killing other people.

I have considered the possibility that guns may be used for something other than killing. But it does not diminish its original purpose -- unless of course the gun in question DOES NOT FIRE BULLETS. So you can own as many glue guns as you wish.

But, in the interest of actually responding to your question...read above. The logical purpose of some guns is, yes, to kill; there are other purposes for other guns, though, such as recreation. Some people enjoy shooting guns. Given the number of people who enjoy "reality television" in this country, recreational firearms use really shouldn't seem weird.

Why do you insist on missing the point every time? A kitchen knife is made as a tool for food preparation. You can also use it to stab someone to death.

In that situation, what is the true and incidental purpose, hmmm?

 

[Bunz]

No. I went fishing a couple of times. What's the point.

So you have never been hunting? How many times have you fired a gun?

 

[numinus]

So you have never been hunting? How many times have you fired a gun?

The last time I fired a gun was 4 years ago -- in a shooting range. I was with a prospective client. Some people like golf, others, well....

 

[Bunz]

The last time I fired a gun was 4 years ago -- in a shooting range. I was with a prospective client. Some people like golf, others, well....

Fair enough, I know we all have our hobbies, I am just trying to get a gauge(no pun intended) on how much experience you have around firearms. See for me it is something different because I grew up around them. So sometimes I dont understand how little some people have been around them.

 

[numinus]

Fair enough, I know we all have our hobbies, I am just trying to get a gauge(no pun intended) on how much experience you have around firearms. See for me it is something different because I grew up around them. So sometimes I dont understand how little some people have been around them.

I am under the opinion that conflicts between individuals that should've resulted in no more than bruises and shattered egos quickly escalate into tragedy if guns are present.

Society is confronted with the problem of gun proliferation to an extent that drastic measures need to be put in place. If these measures somehow interfere with your hobby, then so be it.

 

[dahermit]

I am under the opinion that conflicts between individuals that should've resulted in no more than bruises and shattered egos quickly escalate into tragedy if guns are present.

Society is confronted with the problem of gun proliferation to an extent that drastic measures need to be put in place. If these measures somehow interfere with your hobby, then so be it.

As long as the hobby is not yours.