Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 14:19:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1020 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> 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.
Why is this?
> > 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.
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 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.
I don't see the regulation that I desire being a reality any time soon, or
any time off in the future for that matter either. There are too many legal
hurdles too overcome, not to mention those who feel that if a weapon has been
made they are entitled to it. I don't understand the statment that you made
above. It seems to me that you have a difference of opinion there, but have
not stated your position. This is a debate forum. I may not change anyones
mind, but I will do my best to defend my position.
>
> --
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
