Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[dahermit]

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.

I gave you several examples of guns that were made for sporting purposes. You chose to ignore the facts rather than respond to them, or put a ridiculous spin on it. This does not surprise me.
A .22 rim fire rifle...made for the purpose of killing another human? A modern muzzle loading rilfe...made for the purpose of killing another human?....Idotic.

"I am not a mechanical engineer...but neither are you."
Claim="I have been a consulting engineer for fifteen years..." Reality = "You have not been out of diapers for fifteen years."
"You are not fooling anyone."

 

[PLC1]

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.

I'm of the opinion that when there is a conflict between two individuals, one of whom has a gun and one of whom doesn't, the one who has a gun is usually the winner of the conflict. If the public is not allowed to have guns, then those who don't care what is allowed or what is not are the most likely to win conflicts.

Conflict: Your money, or your life!
Sorry, but there's another alternative: Drop the knife.

 

[numinus]

As long as the hobby is not yours.

Nonsense.

I am very well aware of the thrill associated in using firearms. That thrill DOES NOT justify the proliferation of something that endangers society.

That is why the mere possession of recreational drugs, even in amounts that logically suggests personal use, is PROHIBITED.

 

[numinus]

I gave you several examples of guns that were made for sporting purposes. You chose to ignore the facts rather than respond to them, or put a ridiculous spin on it. This does not surprise me.
A .22 rim fire rifle...made for the purpose of killing another human? A modern muzzle loading rilfe...made for the purpose of killing another human?....Idotic.

YES. THEY ARE MADE FOR KILLING.

Sword fighting is also a sport. It DOES NOT diminish the purpose for which a sword is made.

How many more time do I need to say it before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?

"I am not a mechanical engineer...but neither are you."
Claim="I have been a consulting engineer for fifteen years..." Reality = "You have not been out of diapers for fifteen years."
"You are not fooling anyone."

Unlike you, I am not in the habit of posting opinions not based on FACTS AND LOGIC. I certainly don't need you to believe anything I say to validate who I am.

Bachelor of science, indeed!

 

[numinus]

I'm of the opinion that when there is a conflict between two individuals, one of whom has a gun and one of whom doesn't, the one who has a gun is usually the winner of the conflict. If the public is not allowed to have guns, then those who don't care what is allowed or what is not are the most likely to win conflicts.

Conflict: Your money, or your life!
Sorry, but there's another alternative: Drop the knife.

Correct. And that is precisely the use of law enforcement - to enforce the law.

Duh?

 

[PLC1]

Correct. And that is precisely the use of law enforcement - to enforce the law.

Duh?

New scenario:

"Your money or your life"

"No way. Drop the knife, or I'll call a cop who will shoot you if you don't. Stay there, now, he'll be here in a half hour or so."

Or, here is one from Bunz's territory:

"Look at the size of that grizzly! If he charges, what should we do?"

"Call a cop, of course."

Like you are fond of posting: Duh!

 

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by dahermit
I gave you several examples of guns that were made for sporting purposes. You chose to ignore the facts rather than respond to them, or put a ridiculous spin on it. This does not surprise me.
A .22 rim fire rifle...made for the purpose of killing another human? A modern muzzle loading rilfe...made for the purpose of killing another human?....Idotic.

YES. THEY ARE MADE FOR KILLING.

Sword fighting is also a sport. It DOES NOT diminish the purpose for which a sword is made.

How many more time do I need to say it before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?

If a person reads the preceding exchanges like the one above, it should become obvious that I and others who post here have been arguing with a fool. The vocabulary markers are evident( "Duh", "hmmm?" "sword fighting" not "fencing") that this is not an adult. Therefore, I will no longer respond to his childishness and suggest others follow suit; it is a waste of our time inasmuch as there is nothing to be gained. Let him have the last word.

 

[PLC1]

Originally Posted by dahermit
I gave you several examples of guns that were made for sporting purposes. You chose to ignore the facts rather than respond to them, or put a ridiculous spin on it. This does not surprise me.
A .22 rim fire rifle...made for the purpose of killing another human? A modern muzzle loading rilfe...made for the purpose of killing another human?....Idotic.

If a person reads the preceding exchanges like the one above, it should become obvious that I and others who post here have been arguing with a fool. The vocabulary markers are evident( "Duh", "hmmm?" "sword fighting" not "fencing") that this is not an adult. Therefore, I will no longer respond to his childishness and suggest others follow suit; it is a waste of our time inasmuch as there is nothing to be gained. Let him have the last word.

I agree, almost. I have one last comment:

Was Dick Cheney using the shotgun for its intended purpose while shooting quail, or was he using it for its intended purpose when he shot his hunting partner?

Just wondering.

OK, Nummi, go ahead and have the last word before your Mom calls you to dinner.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Actually, they were available a while ago (no idea if they still are). And yes, some civilians DO own large weapons that shoot explosive rounds (offhand, there are several privately-owned 20mm Solothurn and Lahti rifles).

 

[numinus]

New scenario:

"Your money or your life"

"No way. Drop the knife, or I'll call a cop who will shoot you if you don't. Stay there, now, he'll be here in a half hour or so."

Or, here is one from Bunz's territory:

"Look at the size of that grizzly! If he charges, what should we do?"

"Call a cop, of course."

Like you are fond of posting: Duh!

Are you foolishly suggesting that a gun is the ONLY tool for self-defense? Or are you suggesting that killing your assailant is the ONLY mean of self-defense?

As for the bear, well, whose idea is it to live near a bears natural habitat, eh?

 

[numinus]

Originally Posted by dahermit
I gave you several examples of guns that were made for sporting purposes. You chose to ignore the facts rather than respond to them, or put a ridiculous spin on it. This does not surprise me.
A .22 rim fire rifle...made for the purpose of killing another human? A modern muzzle loading rilfe...made for the purpose of killing another human?....Idotic.

If a person reads the preceding exchanges like the one above, it should become obvious that I and others who post here have been arguing with a fool. The vocabulary markers are evident( "Duh", "hmmm?" "sword fighting" not "fencing") that this is not an adult. Therefore, I will no longer respond to his childishness and suggest others follow suit; it is a waste of our time inasmuch as there is nothing to be gained. Let him have the last word.

Do you call kendo (the japanese martial art of swordsmanship and ALSO A SPORT) fencing?

You really need to get an education before pretending to lecture me.

 

[Bunz]

Actually, they were available a while ago (no idea if they still are). And yes, some civilians DO own large weapons that shoot explosive rounds (offhand, there are several privately-owned 20mm Solothurn and Lahti rifles).

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification and I think my sentiments hold true. The Far majority of civilians dont own these firearms, nor is it legal. One must have additional permits and licenses.

 

[Bunz]

Are you foolishly suggesting that a gun is the ONLY tool for self-defense? Or are you suggesting that killing your assailant is the ONLY mean of self-defense?

As for the bear, well, whose idea is it to live near a bears natural habitat, eh?

Where do you live? You realise that bear habitat crosses most states of course. But hey, why worry about facts and details.

 

[vyo476]

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.

Would you care to provide a link to someone here stating that all guns are designed solely for sport?

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.

If self-defense is pointless for that particular gun, how is meant to be used for killing?

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.

Are we talking about the original purpose of the creation of the first gun, or the original purpose of the creation of every gun in existence?

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?

A kitchen knife is made for food preparation. It can be used to stab someone to death.

A combat knife is made to stab people, either to injure or to kill. It can also be used in food preparation (although that's inadvisable).

So which is it? In your world, what is the purpose of knives? Can you assign one singular purpose underlying the creation of all knives, or are you willing to recognize that some knives are designed for some purposes and some for others? And if so, why are you so dead set against recognizing this fact in relation to guns?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you foolishly suggesting that a gun is the ONLY tool for self-defense? Or are you suggesting that killing your assailant is the ONLY mean (sic) of self-defense?

Not at all, but it is far and away the best. That's why my wife carries one...and her friend...and my uncle.