Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 May 1999 17:14:14 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cjc@newsguy&AvoidSpam&.com
|
Viewed:
|
1039 times
|
| |
|
|
Duane Hess <DNJHESS@ZDNETMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 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)
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 start handing their
guns over to the authorities once they realize how evil the things
are?
Of course my guns are designed to kill people. I'm glad they are, and
if I ever need to use them in that capacity I'll be happy when they
perform well. I guess that makes me evil.
> > 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?
You obviously have no understanding of the thought that went into
crafting the second amendment.
> 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 played paintball yesterday for the first time. I'm in a great deal
of pain right now as a result of hours spent in the woods crouching
and running and jumping and slipping and falling. I used a
semi-automatic paintgun and I think it helped me make a few kills I
would have missed with a pump because it allowed me to walk the balls
into an enemy who realized I was shooting at him and started to move
for cover.
Then again, it was my first time and I wasn't overly impressed with
the accuracy of the weapons.
> > > I stand by my one shot one kill theory.
> >
> > Which means what?
>
> A person only needs one bullet to kill another person.
Thank goodness that isn't always true, otherwise a lot of policemen
and innocent people would be dead.
> 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."
So we're playing with words here again? I've actually asked a dealer
to recommend a gun based on its ability to drop a person with one shot
- no specification of the person I want to drop or the circumstances.
He didn't raise an eyebrow.
Admittedly, "I want a gun so I can kill people" sounds a little more
provocative than "I want a gun to protect my home."
> 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.
I don't agree that you have the understanding required to make an
adequate decision. Thankfully, whether I'm right or not, you probably
won't ever get the magic wand you'd need to bring about the
restrictions you seem to want to enforce on others.
--
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - A great new resource for LEGO fans worldwide
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Why is this? (...) Paintball leaves a lot to be desired with respect to accuracy. I guess part of my bias here is that I own my own marker and know how it shoots. I understand what its limitations are, and work with them. (...) I don't see the (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
