Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[numinus]

Intersting replies so far and thanks to those of you who took the time. It seems to me the consensus is that the current federal laws against the mentally ill and felons owning guns is adequate in principal while there are certainly flaws in the practice of the law as is seen in the public massacres America experiences all to often.

Numinus, we disagree based on what you posted. I think the second amendment covers quite well the legality of ordinary citizens owning firearms.
I am curious as to why you think only those in the armed forces should have them? As an otherwise law abiding citizen and resonsible gun owner should the actions of a few cause me to lose that right?

The second ammendment works for a nation employing militia as its primary defense from foreign aggression. That is simply not the case for the most powerful nation in the world.

The only use for a gun is to kill. A civilian has no business carrying a lethal weapon for private use.

 

[SW85]

The only use for a gun is to kill. A civilian has no business carrying a lethal weapon for private use.

Mmm, this is only true if the civilian has no business killing, which we already know isn't true.

He is perfectly entitled to kill, in defense of himself or others. Or in killing animals. And at any rate, the question at hand seems to be about owning weapons, not carrying them, a different question entirely.

 

[vyo476]

Mmm, this is only true if the civilian has no business killing, which we already know isn't true.

He is perfectly entitled to kill, in defense of himself or others. Or in killing animals. And at any rate, the question at hand seems to be about owning weapons, not carrying them, a different question entirely.

Agreed. Citizens don't have any business carrying guns until some other idiot decides it's his business to go on a rampage; while the law-abiding citizens get mowed down by the psycho who went through back-channels to obtain his firearm (something that will always be possible outside of a Big Brother state), you might start to think that letting a few of those law-abiding citizens carry guns would have been a good idea.

I suppose I've become something of a believer in the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" dynamic. Sure, accidents can and do happen with guns - but an accident while walking can leave you lying the middle of a busy street, or an accident while eating could leave you choking to death. Accidents happen with all manner of things and the answer almost always isn't "stop doing it!", it's "find ways to make it safer!" At least it is to me.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The second ammendment works for a nation employing militia as its primary defense from foreign aggression. That is simply not the case for the most powerful nation in the world.

The only use for a gun is to kill. A civilian has no business carrying a lethal weapon for private use.

Congratulations! That is the single DUMBEST thing I have seen or heard today!

 

[numinus]

Mmm, this is only true if the civilian has no business killing, which we already know isn't true.

He is perfectly entitled to kill, in defense of himself or others. Or in killing animals. And at any rate, the question at hand seems to be about owning weapons, not carrying them, a different question entirely.

No.

A civilian has no business killing -- only self-defense.

And for self-defense to be valid, it MUST conform with the principle of NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE -- meaning, you are only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to DETER your assailant, and if possible, save his life.

Oh, and possession, in the legal sense, implies use.

 

[numinus]

Congratulations! That is the single DUMBEST thing I have seen or heard today!

Curiously, you don't seem to know exactly why, eh?

Do not berate yourself too hard, though. Somehow, I don't expect comprehension to dawn on you soon.

 

[numinus]

Agreed. Citizens don't have any business carrying guns until some other idiot decides it's his business to go on a rampage; while the law-abiding citizens get mowed down by the psycho who went through back-channels to obtain his firearm (something that will always be possible outside of a Big Brother state), you might start to think that letting a few of those law-abiding citizens carry guns would have been a good idea.

I suppose I've become something of a believer in the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" dynamic. Sure, accidents can and do happen with guns - but an accident while walking can leave you lying the middle of a busy street, or an accident while eating could leave you choking to death. Accidents happen with all manner of things and the answer almost always isn't "stop doing it!", it's "find ways to make it safer!" At least it is to me.

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

As I said, a gun has no other use but to kill. A person who possesses a gun, for whatever circumstance he imagines to use it, also possesses the intent to kill.

 

[Bunz]

No.

A civilian has no business killing -- only self-defense.

And for self-defense to be valid, it MUST conform with the principle of NON-CULPABLE SELF-DEFENSE -- meaning, you are only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to DETER your assailant, and if possible, save his life.

Oh, and possession, in the legal sense, implies use.

So, my hunting practices in an effort to feed my family should be outlawed because I am a civilian? I have never killed a human.

Also, the notion that guns are for souly for killing is wrong IMO. A gun is good for only one thing, pulling the trigger generally releases some sort of spring which pushes a firing pin forward with enough force to strike the primer of the round in the chamber therefore pushing a projectile(s) down a barrel. Anything outside of that is the responsibility of the human. A loaded gun left in the corner of a room for 100 years will not go off until someone or something manipulates the trigger to start the previously described mechanical chain of events.

 

[Bunz]

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

As I said, a gun has no other use but to kill. A person who possesses a gun, for whatever circumstance he imagines to use it, also possesses the intent to kill.

I own several guns and quite a few have no practical purposes in its design that have nothing to do with killing or wounding. More like punching holes in paper or breaking clay pidgeons.

 

[vyo476]

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

And how is it that you intend to make sure that only the military and the police have guns?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Curiously, you don't seem to know exactly why, eh?

Do not berate yourself too hard, though. Somehow, I don't expect comprehension to dawn on you soon.

Actually, I certainly know why your post is moronic. There are many reasons to own a gun...like, say, protection. My wife works late (finishes up at 2am today), carrying cash and credit card info. Yep, she carries a pistol (Makarov 9mm SA). Her best friend works late, often finishing up between midnight and 4am. Yep, she carries a pistol (.38 Chiefs Special). My uncle used to be a courier, sometimes carrying large amounts of cash. Yep, he carries a pistol (Walther .380, then a .44 Magnum, now a big .454 Casull). He's also an avid shooter, of pistols and big rifles, and loads his own ammo.

If the weather cooperates, we're going shooting this weekend. He thinks he finally has the loads perfect for his new Springfield Sledgahammer (S&W .500)--I just want to shoot his Holland & Holland elephant rifle, and see him shoot blocks out of the air with revolvers. My grandmother might join us with her late husbands old .45 pistol, and I know she'll want to shoot my uncle's bolt-action rifles.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And if only the military and police have guns, said idiot could go on a rampage holding only his dick for as long and as often as he pleases.

As I said, a gun has no other use but to kill. A person who possesses a gun, for whatever circumstance he imagines to use it, also possesses the intent to kill.

Congratulations! This is the dumbest thing I've read in weeks!

Are you trolling for kicks or are you actually brainwashed enough to believe this idiocy?

 

[vyo476]

Congratulations! This is the dumbest thing I've read in weeks!

Are you trolling for kicks or are you actually brainwashed enough to believe this idiocy?

Calm down. If you have an actual point, make it. Posts like this are entirely unnecessary.

 

[Jarlaxle]

My point is simple: he is essentially accusing myself and most of my family of premeditated murder.

 

[vyo476]

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you in the middle of a thread. Just try to keep your cool.