Subject:
|
Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:25:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
474 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I've held out of this one but must reiterate these points.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> > Dave Low wrote:
> > >
> > > To my mind the difference is that pens, pencils, screwdrivers, baseball bats
> > > etc have a primary purpose which does not involve maiming or death. I would
> > > trust a six year old with a pencil. If you want to own a machine that is
> > > explicitly designed to kill someone, I think you should have to register it.
> > > What about cars? Much more useful than guns, although just as dangerous, and
> > > we don't mind registering them.
> >
> > What a device is _primarily_ designed to do and what one does with it,
> > in my mind, are two very different things.
>
> There are two main threads when arguing in favor of gun ownership. Tim is
> going down one thread: that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns
> besides the one for which they are primarily designed.
>
> This is a valid argument and one that Tim happens to be correct about.
> However it's essentially an apologistic argument.
>
> I choose the other thread. I own a gun precisely because it *is* an
> instrument capable of delivering deadly force, at a fairly long range, in a
> quick, easy to use and reasonably (although I'd prefer an electric powered
> ray gun or something similarly less messy) convenient package.
>
> The gun I choose to own is a handgun. I target shoot with it not because I
> enjoy target shooting as a sport (although others do, and that's good for
> them) but because I wish to maintain my proficiency as a user. I don't see
> gun ownership as a hobby. I don't collect, I don't hunt. I view a gun merely
> as a tool for force delivery.
What if you miss? Does your shooter have enough power to force a bullet
through wall of your home? What then? The fact is, statistics show that you
are more likely to use your gun on yourself or your family, than you are a
criminal.
Do you keep you gun locked away from your children, or do you sleep with it
under your pillow - ready for use?
>
> Why do I want to be able to deliver deadly force? Because it's a proven
> deterrent against crime. HCI "statistics" aside, the record is clear,
> concealed carry states have lower crime rates (across time, and in
> comparision to states with similar demos that have restrictive laws).
Do you have any basis for this? Or are you simply comparing very small numbers?
> Armed
> citizens DO deter crime. No amount of manipulation will explain that away.
>
> But even THAT argument (that guns deter crime) is an apologistic argument in
> view of the reason the US second amendment was put in place. The founding
> fathers didn't want a "well regulated militia" in order to deter burglaries.
> That just happens to be a side benefit.
>
> Those who favor unlimited democracies in which citizens have no inviolable
> rights and in which the majority can by whim strip minorities of whatever
> they wish favor gun control, of course. Armed citizens make it inconvenient
> for the secret police to take people away in the dead of night.
>
> But they are reminded that the US, at least, is not a democracy, it is a
> republic, and does (in theory) have inviolate rights and an armed citizenry
> in place to act as the final check and balance, should usurpurious
> government go too far. That is a *good* thing.
Is it a good thing for the ~4000 under 19 years old who die each year due to
firaems? Is the chance that a "well regulated militia" will be needed worth
that waste Or is is not "waste", but just a price worth paying?
> That is as the founding
> fathers intended. Nothing fundamentally has changed since the American
> patriots took up arms against the British force initiators more than 200
> years ago.
>
> Let other countries willingly turn themselves into nations of sheep if they
> so wish.
Did you fear for your life when you were in the UK last year?
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) Then I guess you should register when you buy alchohol products. Isn't around 30% of traffic deaths alchohol related. I don't consume any alchohol, so it doesn't affect me. Let's make it as hard to get as possible. How about cigarette (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) Statistics be thrown out the window - if you're in a position where no matter how bad the argument gets you'll haul a gun on your own family then gun control isn't going to help -- you can just as easily use anything else around the house for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| As always, snipped. (...) I go to the range enough that I don't often miss. But... the bullets I use go through the body and then through the wall anyway, even if I don't miss. I don't like to use something ineffectual. But others do miss. Accidents (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| I've held out of this one but must reiterate these points. (...) There are two main threads when arguing in favor of gun ownership. Tim is going down one thread: that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns besides the one for which they are (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 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
|
|
|
|
