Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[numinus]

I don't know of anyone who gained competence in science and math by firing guns, nor do I know of anyonw who gained competence in firing guns by studying math and science. Your posts using statistics to try to explain sighting in a rifle are irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion at hand.

While gun ownership is not an "educational and intellectual pursuit", it does take some understanding and skill to use a gun safely and to hit the target.

So, by all means, go back to your intellectual pursuits, and leave gun ownership to individuals who are stable, and who have the skills to use them safely.

Now that you have conceded that guns are NOT for intellectual pursuits, perhaps the argument would become clearer.

A gun is made for only one purpose -- to kill another.

What is the logic of allowing ownership of such a thing to everyone, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

Associate of Applied Science, Metal Processing.(2 years)
Bachelors of Science, Trade Technical Education.(2 years)
Master's Degree, Occupational Education, Training in Business and Industry.(2 years)
Central Office Certification (Two years)
Administrative Certification in Secondary Education (2 years)
Certification in Computer Education (another 2 years).
Novel Network Engineer Certification (another 2 years).

Too late, I have 14 years of post secondary education.

Notice that because I am 64 years old(not a rude child), I do not suffix everything with a "Duh".

And, as you are fond of saying (despite the education you claim), you are not fooling anyone.

LMAO.

I wasn't aware they were giving out bachelor of science degrees for 2-year vocational courses in the us.

What in god's green earth is a trade technical education? Wait! Is that a course where they teach you to change a flat?

LMAO some more.

 

[PLC1]

Now that you have conceded that guns are NOT for intellectual pursuits, perhaps the argument would become clearer.

A gun is made for only one purpose -- to kill another.

What is the logic of allowing ownership of such a thing to everyone, hmmm?

What is the logic of your outrageous straw man argument? Who has tried to argue that guns are for "intellectual pursuits"?

Here is a much better straw man for you to use:

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1441/scarecrowzi6.jpg

 

[numinus]

What is the logic of your outrageous straw man argument? Who has tried to argue that guns are for "intellectual pursuits"?

Here is a much better straw man for you to use:

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1441/scarecrowzi6.jpg

One of the factors that interested me in firearms is that unlike many things, it is open ended in that it can be a very simple past time or can be studied as to its relativity to the sciences. The sciences that can be involved in firearms are: mathematics including geometry, calculus, physics, and trigonometry. Also included are chemistry, metallurgy.

For instance, the Coriolis Effect upon projectile dispersion at extended range. Lead Styphenate and Nitrocellulose. Austinetic, Martensetic, and Ferritic stainless steels. The molecular phases of heat treat including Austinite and Martinsite. Cast Bullet alloys that include lead, tin, antimony, and arsenic. Composition of Brass (copper and zinc), and the heat treatment there of. Heat treatment of lead alloy cast bullets. etc., etc.

Furthermore, the history of firearms is also a worthy intellectual pursuit. The reasoning behind Major Schofield's modifications to Smith and Wesson's Model 3. The significance of the hidden set triggers in Hamilton's dueling pistols(Hamilton-Burr duel).

Given the above, anyone who would say: "...Since when is a knowledge of firearms considered an intellectual pursuit, hmmm?", has demonstrated that they lack the knowledge to make that determination and just seeks to be provocative.

So you see, I'm not the author of this nonsense this discussion has degenerated into.

 

[PLC1]

So you see, I'm not the author of this nonsense this discussion has degenerated into.

So you're not. I must have missed that post.

I wonder if there is any possibility at all that this thread can get back on track, or is it totally turned around and upside down by now?

Guns. Who should be allowed to have them, who should not?

I still say that anyone who has passed a firearms safety course, and a background check should be allowed to possess firearms.

Anyone who is certifiably crazy, or who has a criminal history, or who doesn't know a firing pin from a knitting needle should not have guns.

I've met deer hunters with high powered rifles who shouldn't be allowed BB guns. They would, no doubt, rail on about the second amendment were one to tell them that shooting road signs and taking "brush shots" should disqualify them from ever again having a rifle or a hunting license.

But the second amendment doesn't even mention the word "guns."

There. Let's see if we can either get back on track, or just allow this thread to peacefully pass into history.

 

[numinus]

So you're not. I must have missed that post.

I wonder if there is any possibility at all that this thread can get back on track, or is it totally turned around and upside down by now?

Guns. Who should be allowed to have them, who should not?

I still say that anyone who has passed a firearms safety course, and a background check should be allowed to possess firearms.

Anyone who is certifiably crazy, or who has a criminal history, or who doesn't know a firing pin from a knitting needle should not have guns.

I've met deer hunters with high powered rifles who shouldn't be allowed BB guns. They would, no doubt, rail on about the second amendment were one to tell them that shooting road signs and taking "brush shots" should disqualify them from ever again having a rifle or a hunting license.

But the second amendment doesn't even mention the word "guns."

There. Let's see if we can either get back on track, or just allow this thread to peacefully pass into history.

While I considered it appropriate to respond to the patent nonsense posted in this thread (the better to expose them for what they are -- nonsense), I have never lost track of the main argument.

All things are made for some specific use or purpose. Guns are made for the specific purpose of killing people.

From this alone, it is clear that the only logical use for a gun is WITHIN THE EXERCISE OF THE STATES SOVEREIGN POWER. Hence, only military and police personnel should carry guns.

 

[dahermit]

LMAO.

I wasn't aware they were giving out bachelor of science degrees for 2-year vocational courses in the us.

What in god's green earth is a trade technical education? Wait! Is that a course where they teach you to change a flat?

LMAO some more.

Associate of Applied Science, Metal Processing.(2 years) +
Bachelors of Science, Trade Technical Education.(2 years) +
________________
You adds them up to get:
Total = Bachelor of Science 4 years

"... What in god's green earth is a trade technical education? Wait! Is that a course where they teach you to change a flat?"

No, teaching Machine Tool Technology. I was both a secondary machine shop(precision machining) teacher and an instructor in industry.

Laughing More Than You Out Loud.

"You are not fooling anyone."

 

[Jarlaxle]

Guns. Who should be allowed to have them, who should not?

Anyone who is not a convicted felon or mentally ill.

 

[vyo476]

Next question: Should any specific guns be illegal for private ownership? Should the rules be more stringent for larger, more dangerous firearms, or should those weapons not be allowed at all?

 

[Bunz]

Next question: Should any specific guns be illegal for private ownership? Should the rules be more stringent for larger, more dangerous firearms, or should those weapons not be allowed at all?

Sweet Mary, Jesus, Joseph and God thank you for this VYO. I bailed on this thread like 2 weeks ago and it is still going.

There have been some movements to ban various types of guns, large ones, automatic ones, small ones. I am one who thinks the user is responsible for the gun. As someone who likes to shoot, I think an MP5 or even better a Thompson would be a hoot to shoot. Ive got no desire to own a 50caliber rifle that seem to be gaining in popularity, they serve thier purposes, but not within what I am looking for.

 

[dahermit]

...All things are made for some specific use or purpose. Guns are made for the specific purpose of killing people.

From this alone, it is clear that the only logical use for a gun is WITHIN THE EXERCISE OF THE STATES SOVEREIGN POWER. Hence, only military and police personnel should carry guns.

This statement is inaccurate and nothing more than an appeal to demagoguery.

For instance, shotguns were invented, and made to shoot flying game, i.e. "fouling piece." Also there are guns that are so designed and made for target shooting purposes. 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). Although the police and military have a history of using shotguns as an anti-personnel weapon, their primary use is still for hunting flying game and trap or skeet competition.

Also, there are bench rest rifles that are designed for bench rest competition to the point they are not practical for any other purpose.

An Olympic competition rapid-fire pistol is designed to shoot .22 short cartridges, has barrel weights, has a carved wooden grip that is "worn" on the hand like a glove; in all making the pistol only suitable for Olympic rapid fire competition.

In light of the above, to state that "...Guns are made for the specific purpose of killing people..." is an inaccurate and childish over-reaction to an unreasonable fear and to impart a feeling of dread of an inanimate object by a person bent on garnering support for his own political position.

Lastly, the Second Amendment of the Constitution allows people to keep are bear arms which supersedes any argument about state sovereignty. In any event, many states have sections in their constitutions that also support the people's right to keep and bear arms.

You are not fooling anyone.

 

[vyo476]

Sweet Mary, Jesus, Joseph and God thank you for this VYO. I bailed on this thread like 2 weeks ago and it is still going.

Don't thank me, thank Jarlaxle. He (gender assumption, sorry) got it back on track.

There have been some movements to ban various types of guns, large ones, automatic ones, small ones. I am one who thinks the user is responsible for the gun. As someone who likes to shoot, I think an MP5 or even better a Thompson would be a hoot to shoot. Ive got no desire to own a 50caliber rifle that seem to be gaining in popularity, they serve thier purposes, but not within what I am looking for.

When I first came here I was all for banning larger weapons; talking with several members of the forum (notably our departed mod USMC) convinced me that I was incorrect. I still think that a slightly more rigourous licensing program should be in place for larger, more dangerous weapons - after all, handguns are comparatively simple.

 

[Bunz]

When I first came here I was all for banning larger weapons; talking with several members of the forum (notably our departed mod USMC) convinced me that I was incorrect. I still think that a slightly more rigourous licensing program should be in place for larger, more dangerous weapons - after all, handguns are comparatively simple.

I gotta tell ya, I miss my Jarhead buddy. I hope he will come back at some point. Either way, it is tough to define what weapon is more dangerous than another, especially when it comes to guns. The danger is in the hands of the user. Also, handguns when compared to other types of say long guns, rifles and shotguns, are more complex. I could train a gifted chimp on how to use a pump action shotgun or a bolt action rifle safely. But the notion of a revolver or a auto pistol, the different systems involved in modern pistols are comparable to long guns. My glock has more buttons and levers than my Browning double barrel 12ga.

 

[numinus]

Associate of Applied Science, Metal Processing.(2 years) +
Bachelors of Science, Trade Technical Education.(2 years) +
________________
You adds them up to get:
Total = Bachelor of Science 4 years

"... What in god's green earth is a trade technical education? Wait! Is that a course where they teach you to change a flat?"

No, teaching Machine Tool Technology. I was both a secondary machine shop(precision machining) teacher and an instructor in industry.

Laughing More Than You Out Loud.

"You are not fooling anyone."

LMAO

It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. You can spend all your life taking vocational courses on this or that part of, say, a car, and it will never amount to a degree in mechanical engineering.

 

[numinus]

This statement is inaccurate and nothing more than an appeal to demagoguery.

For instance, shotguns were invented, and made to shoot flying game, i.e. "fouling piece." Also there are guns that are so designed and made for target shooting purposes. 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). Although the police and military have a history of using shotguns as an anti-personnel weapon, their primary use is still for hunting flying game and trap or skeet competition.

Also, there are bench rest rifles that are designed for bench rest competition to the point they are not practical for any other purpose.

An Olympic competition rapid-fire pistol is designed to shoot .22 short cartridges, has barrel weights, has a carved wooden grip that is "worn" on the hand like a glove; in all making the pistol only suitable for Olympic rapid fire competition.

In light of the above, to state that "...Guns are made for the specific purpose of killing people..." is an inaccurate and childish over-reaction to an unreasonable fear and to impart a feeling of dread of an inanimate object by a person bent on garnering support for his own political position.

Lastly, the Second Amendment of the Constitution allows people to keep are bear arms which supersedes any argument about state sovereignty. In any event, many states have sections in their constitutions that also support the people's right to keep and bear arms.

You are not fooling anyone.

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.