Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 17:41:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1011 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Duane Hess wrote:
> >
> > Guns kill, that was their design intent.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, my Ruger never has.
Give me one example of a fire arm that was produced, but never intened to
discharge a projectile (other than a starting pistol).
>
> > I agree with the right to bear arms
> > though. That was a right written into the Constitution and I will support • it.
> > What I will not support though is the NRAs stance that automatic and semi-
> > automatic weapons are protected under this right.
>
> What possible reason could you have for that? They are quite obviously
> protected by the second amendment. Every weapon available to the agents
> of government are protected by the second.
I will concede that they are currently protected under the second amendment,
but I _personally_ don't support the sale of automatic or semi-automatic
weapons to the general public. I feel that there is no need for these weapons
to be available. We have a military. If you _must_ be around these high
powered weapons, join it.
> > What use, other than "sport
> > shooting" do these weapons have?
>
> Hunting. Killing people. Home defense. Collecting. Just to name a few.
I see no sport in hunting with either a semi-automatic, or automatic weapon.
I could do just as well with a bolt action rifle, after all it only takes
one shot to kill. Right?
Killing people. Yes. That's what guns were originally designed for. They had
a better rage than the bow and were better at the job. You don't need
automatic or semi-automatic weapons to do the same function a revolver could
perform. I stand by my one shot one kill theory. I also challenge you to
go to a gun dealer and tell him that this is the reason why you are buying
the gun.
Home defence. Same argument as above although this one won't bring the police
down on you when you mention it to the gun dealer.
Collecting. I can go along with this if the weapon has been rendered
inoperable (remember, I'm talking semi-automatic and automatic weapons here).
>
> > None.
>
> Obviously wrong.
Obvious to whom?
>
> > They are bought and stored by
> > (generalization) paranoid individuals who feel that they need them to • protect
> > their family and possesions. More often then not, the storage of these • weapons
> > is inadequate.
>
> You seem to know a lot more that I would have thought possible. How do
> you get into all those peoples' houses to check on their firearms
> storage system? Are you related to Santa Clause?
I should have been more specific with the coverage of the "generalization"
clause.
>
> > To protect children from the fire arm stored in the house, the
> > ammunition should be stored seperately.
>
> Which children? Do all these nefarious gun toting paranoids also have kids?
See above.
> > The gun should also be equipped with a
> > trigger lock. This protects the child from the gun, but renders the gun • useless
> > in the event of a "hostile attack from outside forces."
>
> Unless you can remove the trigger guard quickly. My trigger guard
> requires a little tool to remove and (for now) my son is able to
> manipulate it correctly. I think the trigger guard in important since I
> (obviously irresponsibly) keep ammunition in the gun.
Does this mean that your child can remove the trigger guard by himself?
I see that as an extreme danger to himself and those around him, _especially_
if the weapon is stored loaded.
> > As you can see, there is a catch 22 here. Buy a gun to protect the family • from
> > intruders, but render the gun useless to protect the family from the gun.
>
> That's just not how it is.
>
> > Why not buy a Doberman?
>
> But what NEED do you have for a doberman? Dobermans are dangerous too.
> I was attacked by a doberman when I was eleven (I wasn't hospitalized,
> so not too bad) but I've never been shot. Many of my neighbors raise
> Pit Bulls. I am wildly more afraid of them than I am of the fact that
> they own guns. (the people, not the dogs :-)
What NEED do you have for a gun? I will concede that a Doberman as well as
other breeds of canine can be dangerous. There are now laws which restrict
them too, but that isn't a Constitutional issue now is it?
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher L. Weeks
> central Missouri, USA
Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Are you saying the to discharge a projectile is the same as to kill? My ruger has discharged many projectiles, but probably never killed...I bought it new. But, for the sake of the argument, I believe that there are collectible firearms that (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) So it is your belief that a revolver is ok while a semi-automatic pistol like my Glock is not. What's the difference, really? I can almost guarantee you that I could kill someone with the revolver more efficiently than the Glock, if for no (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) To the best of my knowledge, my Ruger never has. (...) What possible reason could you have for that? They are quite obviously protected by the second amendment. Every weapon available to the agents of government are protected by the second. (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
