Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 20:12:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1054 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Duane Hess wrote:
> >
> > 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).
>
> 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 are able to discharge firearms, but doing
> so would devalue them and no one expects it to happen.
Discharging a projectile is not the same as to kill. If that were true, I
could be arrested just for vomiting. My point was that guns were designed
to kill by shooting at the intended victim (animal, vegitable, or mineral).
I asked if you could give me an example of a firearm which was produced, but
never intended to fire. (that sounds like an oxymoron if I ever heard one)
>
> > > > 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.
>
> I happen to disagree with you, but I understand the sentiment. If the
> law needs to change, then it needs to change, not be ignored. As to the
> last part of what you've said, does that mean that you believe in a "if
> you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy? The military and other agents
> of the government are exactly why automatic weapons are (and should be)
> protected by the second.
Why is this? If you simply must be around high powered weapons, go to the
military where they belong. I don't understand the how the government and
the military justify the legalization of high powered weapons for the
general public. Is it the "peace through superior firepower" mentality
which ushered in the Cold War?
>
> > > 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?
>
> Well, I don't kill animals, I'm even a vegetarian, so I'm not interested
> in that sport, but it's not for me to outlaw others' sports on a whim.
> As I understand it, it often takes more than one shot, but I've never
> fired at anything alive.
I personally have never needed more than one shot. You take your time, sight
in, relax and then you have rabbit stew. Don't get me wrong here, hunting
isn't something I do on a regular basis, but it is something that I have
done in the past and will do again in the future.
>
> > 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
>
> At first, they were worse.
Actually, looking back at that paragraph, you are right.
>
> > automatic or semi-automatic weapons to do the same function a revolver could
> > perform.
>
> I don't want automatic weapons to perform the same function as a
> revolver. I want them so that I can sweep away hoards of soldiers if I
> disagree with their behavior so strongly that I think it's justified.
I beg to differ. Contrary to Hollywood myth more bullets in the air (from a
single source) does not equate to higher enemy casualties. I am a paintball
player and have used both semi-automatic and single shot paint markers. The
only difference that was made when I used the semi-automatic was that my
wallet went flatter quicker.
>
> > I stand by my one shot one kill theory.
>
> Which means what?
A person only needs one bullet to kill another person.
> > I also challenge you to
> > go to a gun dealer and tell him that this is the reason why you are buying
> > the gun.
>
> So?
>
> > 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.
>
> I sometimes hang out at the range/gun store/gun club where I shoot, and
> talk to the employees and other patrons, and there's no hesitancy about
> selling guns to people for home defence...what do you mean?
I was trying to point out the difference in the two statments. What type
of reaction would I get if I walked into the local gun dealers shop and
told him I wanted to buy a gun so that I could kill people VS telling
him I wanted a gun for home defence? The first part would probably get me
arrested, the second part would get me the gun.
Think about it:
"I want a gun so that I can kill people."
V.S.
"I want a gun so that I can protect my family and personal possesions."
>
> > Collecting. I can go along with this if the weapon has been rendered
> > inoperable (remember, I'm talking semi-automatic and automatic weapons • here).
>
> Oh, but then it's not worth as much - thus less collectible, and there's
> a black market for kits to make them work properly.
That would get into a legal issue now, wouldn't it. It would only be less
collectible to those who want fully functional weapons of this type, when
possession of a fully/semi automatic weapon would be illegal.
(Remember, this is future tense here and highly hypothetical. These laws
don't exist.)
>
> > >
> > > > None.
> > >
> > > Obviously wrong.
> >
> > Obvious to whom?
>
> To anyone who saw the list of reasons that I gave.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Meaning what? That you should have explained that you were trying to
> vilify gun (semi-auto rifles, anyway) owners to fit your neat little
> discriminatory bigoted notions? Come on! You were asserting that most
> gun owners are irresponsible, paranoid, and stupid. Where do you get
> off asserting this in the first place, much less trying to defend it
> when I called you on it.
Yes, I was asserting that semi-auto/auto gun owners are paranoid. Why
else would they need that type of firepower, other than to pacify
irrational fears of being attacked by a military force that has been
put into place to protect them from that very threat? Irresponsible and
stupid, only apply to those who haven't taken the time to learn about the
destructive power those weapons possess.
> > 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.
>
> No, I said that wrong. I'm sure you'll agree that it makes more sense
> if you read 'is able' as 'is not able.' Sorry about that. I'm an
> advocate of wide-spread distribution of military hardware, but not of
> being irresponsible.
How do you ensure responsibility? I'm not against the right to bear arms,
but I do feel that there should be a restriction on what _type_ of arms
the average person should be able to bear.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) It also sounds like a stupid question. What do you think, that if enough people admit that guns, in essence, are meant to shot projectiles that will kill another person, they'll just vanish? Or gunowners the world over will just jump up and (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
