Guns? What are your feelings?

[cff]

Eh? What are you talking about? I was simply stating my own motives for owning a weapon. When I bought my rifle my concern was not self defense. I do not live in a crime-ridden part of town, nor have I been a victim of a crime. When I went shopping for an M1 Garand I was shopping for something I'd get enjoyment out of. Of course one could argue that I have not been a victim of a crime since then because we are very visible when we put our guns in our car for a day of shooting.

You seemed to imply that in a country where guns are pretty much banned you could not have a weapon for hunting/sport/collecting them (the latter would apply to me/my family - tho the majority are blades). I talked about how this can be realized by the example of Austria. Simple as that.

 

[cff]

That was something that didn't come out during the trial testimony. We found out after it was over. The alternates told us, among other things, that one of the attorneys had said that the guns, a Taraus, a Glock, and a Smith & Wesson, were stolen from a pawn shop.

IC. The reason I asked was this: Its 'fairly' easy to have high security in weapon stores and pawn shops. However when there are more legal guns around in private homes which are stored fairly insecure it is also quite easy to get guns by just breaking into houses.

That experience was the 4th and most recent time I've had jury duty. If called upon again I'd go, but I'm not sure how enthusiastic I'd be. My father and mother are both 61 years old and have never had jury duty.

I can kinda relate to that, having had jury duty for a tried murder myself (no cold blooded murder, rather a case of two man fighting about a woman) that year. No guns involved in that one, just a knife. In any case there was a shitload of luck involved. About each wound could have been lethal if it had happened some inches in another direction with wounds on the skull, the neck and the shoulder.

 

[cff]

A gun is a tool. It is morally neutral. In the hands of a good person, it is a good thing.

Would you say the same thing for bigger 'guns'? Like nuclear missiles?

 

[t.c.cgi]

You seemed to imply that in a country where guns are pretty much banned you could not have a weapon for hunting/sport/collecting them (the latter would apply to me/my family - tho the majority are blades). I talked about how this can be realized by the example of Austria. Simple as that.

I'm guessing you don't really mean banned, because if they are banned then you can't get a gun, period. And it's also realized in America, quite easily. I like it that way.

But lets hit another point... you say you collect blades? I bet they're not butter knives, are they? How would you feel if the government came to your house one day, took all your blades, and tossed them into a smelter?

 

[Death]

Would you say the same thing for bigger 'guns'? Like nuclear missiles?

Because, of course, we all know that nuclear missiles can just up and launch themselves without any guidance or instructions from people...

Less sarcastically, yes they're tools, too, and have no more intent of "good" or "evil" (the latter of which you snipped from Ridge's reply when you quoted it; for the sake of not being a dick I'll assume that wasn't intentional to imply a different response than the one that he actually gave) than your average butter knife or stone lifted from the garden.

As for whether nukes are a good thing in general, I don't recall ever being fond of their existence, but they do exist, and as much of a "Mexican standoff" as MAD was, it did inhibit a thrid world war (far more than the UN has done, but that's another thread entirely), so purely in that sense it (and by extention, The Bomb in general) was good.

 

[McGruff]

I beg you pardon, but when a robber is standing before me, weapon drawn what use would a loaded weapon I carry have? Do you expect to draw and fire faster then he fires?! Wow Mr. Lucky Lucke - I admire you.

Nope, I'm not going to try to beat the drop IF the situation were exactly as you describe it with the robber devoting 100% attention to me and only me during the entire ordeal. But maybe he's holding up a convenience store and has to deal with multiple customers and employees. Maybe he's executing random people. Maybe he's waving the gun around erratically. Maybe he even sets it down for a second to hold open his loot bag as in recent camera footage that I have seen. Once again there are numerous possible factors that you're not considering, Mr. Quadruplepost. And all this coming from someone in the land of Steyr and Glock?

 

[Delance]

People see evil in things, when evil is inside the hearts of men.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Would you say the same thing for bigger 'guns'? Like nuclear missiles?

Absolutely. Lotsa ICBMs controlled by the Soviet Union, threatening the free world was a very bad thing. Thousands of ICBMs controlled by the United States, deterring the Soviet Union from using theirs, was, and still is, a very good thing.

Interesting note: Seems the anti-gun types always have the bad guys winning in their hypothetical examples. Why on the side of the bad guys so much?

Come get on board with the good guys.


(t.c. cgi: You suck. I've wanted an M-1 Garand for years. )

 

[t.c.cgi]

(t.c. cgi: You suck. I've wanted an M-1 Garand for years. )

Why, thank you. If you ever happen to catch me out at the Cecil Webb WMA Range and bring your own .30-06, I'll let you shoot it.

 

[McGruff]

Yes, someday I've got to have my own M-1. I was considering getting a rifle from the CMP program, but now that I discovered this company I think I'll save up my pennies for a completely restored one. Someday.
http://www.miltecharms.com/

 

[Chicken]

To throw my two cents into the issue, as a gun owner myself it comes to a very simple concept:

RESPONSIBILITY

Yes a single word sums up my feelings. I'm responsible for the actions involving my weapon because I'm the moron using it.

 

[cff]

But lets hit another point... you say you collect blades? I bet they're not butter knives, are they? How would you feel if the government came to your house one day, took all your blades, and tossed them into a smelter?

No butter knifes, no. Regarding the smelter - why would they? Its not illegal. Assuming you want to know what my feelings were if they outlawed them (because they are what they are, NOT because the need the ore for example). Hmm - good question. I am not all that attached to them as you migth think. BUT I would have serious worries about the state as a whole if this happened. What next? No Butter Knifes? No Forks? No Baseball Bats? So the answer would probably be that I'd consider to leave country beause of the whole mindset that would have to have preceeded that decision.

(note when I said Blades I was referring to stuff like roman swords and the like - so we are taling about old ones that are not exactly suited to be used anymore. I don't do swordfightig).

But maybe he's holding up a convenience store and has to deal with multiple customers and employees.

So I would find myself in a shooting between a desperate robber and some shoppers? Uhm - Great...

Maybe he's executing random people.

Uhm - okay. This is just stupid.

Once again there are numerous possible factors that you're not considering, Mr. Quadruplepost. And all this coming from someone in the land of Steyr and Glock?

Was this supposed to be a flame?

Absolutely. Lotsa ICBMs controlled by the Soviet Union, threatening the free world was a very bad thing. Thousands of ICBMs controlled by the United States, deterring the Soviet Union from using theirs, was, and still is, a very good thing.

At the danger of getting mightily flamed...
Any yet the USA is the only country to that has ever used an atomic bomb and for someting that would probably be labelled terrorism if done my most other countries.
Besides the logic is kinda flawed, because the Soviet Union would say the very same thing. Heck even regimes like North Korea only want the bomb/have the bomb for that very reason.

Interesting note: Seems the anti-gun types always have the bad guys winning in their hypothetical examples. Why on the side of the bad guys so much?
Come get on board with the good guys.

Its just a matter of training. Would you expect to win a car race against a professional driver? I don't. Besides there is the advantage of surprise. Besides how often do you hear that someone was killed by a robber when he tried to defend himself? How often do you hear it even was with his own weapon? OTOH how often do you hear that someone fended of a robber? Sorry, but it just doesn't seem to be in fawour of the good guys.

 

[AD]

Just something I thought I'd throw in for good measure... It kinda relates to the discussion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Kitchen knives ban call ...

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings. They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon. The research is published in the British Medical Journal...

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect..."

"...An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

 

[Quarto]

No butter knifes, no. Regarding the smelter - why would they? Its not illegal. Assuming you want to know what my feelings were if they outlawed them (because they are what they are, NOT because the need the ore for example). Hmm - good question. I am not all that attached to them as you migth think. BUT I would have serious worries about the state as a whole if this happened. What next? No Butter Knifes? No Forks? No Baseball Bats? So the answer would probably be that I'd consider to leave country beause of the whole mindset that would have to have preceeded that decision.

Yep, and that's the thing that concerns many gun owners. It seems any excuse is used to cut down gun ownership. Murder rate on the rise? Ban shotguns. What, none of the crimes involved shotguns? Who cares, ban them anyway. A guy walks into a bar and shoots up a bunch of people with a pistol? Ban semi-automatic rifles. What do you mean, he used a pistol? Doesn't matter, ban semi-automatic rifles anyway.

Under such circumstances, it just doesn't seem reasonable to take the attempts to restrict gun ownership at face value - they clearly aren't done for the sake of improving public safety. That knife article brings up an excellent point - it sounds so crazy, we half expect it to be an April Fool's joke... but really, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes is committed with knives and improvised weapons. Pistols come next, and then, at a very distant spot, there's bigger guns like rifles, assault rifles, submachine guns, and so on... yet, when gun ownership is restricted, those big guns are always the first ones to go. What does that tell you? It tells you that the restrictions won't make a difference, and so more restrictions will follow. And ultimately, you will get to the point where you are talking seriously about banning knives - because if the majority of crimes is commited by such weapons, then no amount of gun restrictions will solve the problem sufficiently to put an end to further restrictions.

So, that's another reason to support unrestricted gun ownership - restrictions on gun ownership are a complete dead end. Taken to their logical conclusion, they leave us with pens as the only legally available pointed instrument.

Any yet the USA is the only country to that has ever used an atomic bomb and for someting that would probably be labelled terrorism if done my most other countries.

Well, it was wartime, you know. And, while I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion about this, it's worth pointing out that arguments still rage between historians in regard to the amount of lives that may or may not have been saved by the use of the atom bombs.

Besides the logic is kinda flawed, because the Soviet Union would say the very same thing. Heck even regimes like North Korea only want the bomb/have the bomb for that very reason.

Exactly - and they are all correct in their arguments. In all cases (...except that particular WWII situation), nuclear weapons are a purely defensive weapon. Nobody builds nuclear weapons for war. So... why did you suggest that nuclear weapons are somehow worse than ordinary hand-held weapons?

OTOH how often do you hear that someone fended of a robber? Sorry, but it just doesn't seem to be in fawour of the good guys.

Well, I've heard, for example, of at least two instances where someone who collected swords was assaulted, and defended himself with a sword he happened to have with him (and as you know, collecting swords does not mean being a proficient sword-fighter). In both cases, the defender was successful on the street (but later suffered for it in court - the law in Poland is pretty harsh against people who dare to defend themselves). If someone can do it with a sword, I'm confident there's plenty of people out there that successfully defend themselves with guns.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why, thank you. If you ever happen to catch me out at the Cecil Webb WMA Range and bring your own .30-06, I'll let you shoot it.

Is that a range in the Dallas- Fort Worth area?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Any yet the USA is the only country to that has ever used an atomic bomb and for someting that would probably be labelled terrorism if done my most other countries.

That's a profoundly silly thing to say - it's only true in the sense that *anything* that was called 'strategic bombing' in the 1940s can be likened to what we consider 'terrorism' today...

How is te United States is inherently evil? Because it found a better way to do exactly what the Germans had done to London or the British had done to Dresden? You're saying a silly buzz word ('atomic bomb') and hoping people will jump instead of pointing out how dumb your claim is.

(Furthermore, the United States is not the "only country ever to use an atomic bomb". What you mean is that the United States is the only country ever to use an atomic bomb in a war -- which is even debatable, given the fact that the Soviet's certainly used their large bombs to pursue their cold war gains.... they didn't use them to bomb cities, but they certainly set them off in shows to keep their subject nations and the rest of the world in line.)

 

[Ptarmigan]

That's a profoundly silly thing to say - it's only true in the sense that *anything* that was called 'strategic bombing' in the 1940s can be likened to what we consider 'terrorism' today...

How is te United States is inherently evil? Because it found a better way to do exactly what the Germans had done to London or the British had done to Dresden? You're saying a silly buzz word ('atomic bomb') and hoping people will jump instead of pointing out how dumb your claim is.

(Furthermore, the United States is not the "only country ever to use an atomic bomb". What you mean is that the United States is the only country ever to use an atomic bomb in a war -- which is even debatable, given the fact that the Soviet's certainly used their large bombs to pursue their cold war gains.... they didn't use them to bomb cities, but they certainly set them off in shows to keep their subject nations and the rest of the world in line.)

If the US did not drop the nuke, than America and Allies would of invaded Japan and that would of resulted in many deaths, easily in the millions. The Japanese fought to their death.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Well, that's a huge debate among historians and internet weirdos - and there's certainly a compelling argument that the second bomb was dropped as much to disuade the Russians as it was to end the war. Sadly, as the original poster here has so ably demonstrated, it's more a debate for jerks who like being controversial than it is one that can be explored intelligently at the moment.

(None of that is really related to the original poster's point, which was a misguided attempt to reference a historical event simply because it continues to be controversial. We can pick whatever country it's gauche to say is the evil world power at the moment and find some historical argued-wrong to tack that ignorant little "just like terrorism!" qualifier to.)

 

[t.c.cgi]

Is that a range in the Dallas- Fort Worth area?

Err, no... just south Tampa.

 

[cff]

Yep, and that's the thing that concerns many gun owners. It seems any excuse is used to cut down gun ownership.

Ah, but there is one difference. You cannot ban knifes as they are a needed tool in everydays life. You can easily ban guns as they are not needed.

Murder rate on the rise? Ban shotguns. What, none of the crimes involved shotguns? Who cares, ban them anyway. A guy walks into a bar and shoots up a bunch of people with a pistol? Ban semi-automatic rifles. What do you mean, he used a pistol? Doesn't matter, ban semi-automatic rifles anyway.

Thats soooo a different subject. And it doesn't happen with guns alone. Just have a look at the recent bombings in London. There are cameras everywhere, yet they didn't do anything to prevent the terrorism. HOWEVER now everyone screams all over Europe that we need more of them because of terrorism... So because something doesn't work it is now vital to have it everywhere. Geez. Politicians and other groups with some influence will always be willing to jump at any opportunity to pass a law they wanted to happen for a LOOOOONG time when the opportunity arises. And rigth now it is a dream for all the intelligence gathering organisations. They get any privacy invading wish granted that they had for decades.

Well, I've heard, for example, of at least two instances where someone who collected swords was assaulted, and defended himself with a sword he happened to have with him (and as you know, collecting swords does not mean being a proficient sword-fighter). In both cases, the defender was successful on the street (but later suffered for it in court - the law in Poland is pretty harsh against people who dare to defend themselves). If someone can do it with a sword, I'm confident there's plenty of people out there that successfully defend themselves with guns.

Sure you heared examples. But how many? OTOH its not uncommon that somebody is severly enjured or killed because he dared to figth back.