America is going CRAZY...Time to Ban Guns

I see the killer at Northern Illinois was off his meds. :(

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

smokeydabear076

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

I'm not questioning that you can train with a gun, of course you can, but seeing them as being as much a "recreational device" is plainly wrong.

The purpose of a gun always has been first and foremost to take life, or as a means of force.

To view them as anything less than that is when things start going wrong.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Hoobinator

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

I'm not questioning that you can train with a gun, of course you can, but seeing them as being as much a "recreational device" is plainly wrong.

The purpose of a gun always has been first and foremost to take life, or as a means of force.

To view them as anything less than that is when things start going wrong.

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Hoobinator

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

I'm not questioning that you can train with a gun, of course you can, but seeing them as being as much a "recreational device" is plainly wrong.

The purpose of a gun always has been first and foremost to take life, or as a means of force.

To view them as anything less than that is when things start going wrong.

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I can shoot a gun off to let off some steam, no one needs to be harmed in the process and I call that recreational.smokeydabear076

Agreed.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Hoobinator

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

I'm not questioning that you can train with a gun, of course you can, but seeing them as being as much a "recreational device" is plainly wrong.

The purpose of a gun always has been first and foremost to take life, or as a means of force.

To view them as anything less than that is when things start going wrong.

My buddy was in the Rifle Club in High School.

I would consider that a recreational sport.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Hoobinator

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

LJS9502_basic

I was thinking more in terms of manufacturers when they make these weapons. What goes through their minds. In their minds, with the original purpose the aim is simple, to kill. Simple as that. The essence of a gun is to kill, that is its objective. The firing mechanism is a means to an end i.e. it should shoot straight, reach its designated target etc

Secondly I objected mostly to MrBojangles25 idea that guns are "recreational devices" as much as for defence. Plainly wrong. When you start to see them as anything other than their sole deadly purpose you're in shaky grounds, psychologically you're viewing them as instruments of fun. I'm not saying you can't have fun with a gun, you may well take satisfaction from shooting a gun, but to diminish their inherent danger by viewing them in "recreational" terms is when things start to go wrong.

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

So someone went psycho and killed some people. Yes, its a tragedy.

But guess what? It will happen again. Its happening right now, in Germany. In France. And by the thousands in Africa.

I think someone phrased it best in another post (sorry, I forgot their name!): "perfection is impossible". We can ban guns til the cows come home, but guess what: it wont change a thing. If some guy goes psycho at college, and he doesnt have a gun, then I guess he will just make a bomb with homemade chemicals, or take a knife with him, or perhaps get guns illegally (as criminals do).

The real irony is that the US has a "no negotiation" stance with terrorism, yet when something like this happens the liberals want to ban guns. This is bad for two reasons: you are taking guns away from those that own them safely and legally, and you are giving those that acquire guns illegally more power. In addition, you are also taking power away from the people and giving more power to the government. Things are pretty sweet in terms of freedom and living in the US right now, but I dont delude myself by saying this will last forever. I regret to say that there may be a time when my great-great-great-great grandchildren will need to revolt against a tyranical government, or perhaps even rebel against a forgeign invader a la "Red Dawn" (far fetched, I know, but definately possible).

And wtf is this about a girl getting taught to shoot a machine gun? Yes, we do have some screwy people in the US but I will bet money that the girl will NEVER kill a human being intentionally her whole life til the day she dies.

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

mrbojangles25

I have never thought about gun control in response to things like Columbine. It's the rest of the deaths that concern me. I just don't understand Americans who think removing guns wouldn't help. You are the, like, billionth person in this thread to bring up how this doesn't take away illegal guns, just legal guns from law abiding citizens. I will counter, again, that every illegal gun begins life legal until it is led astray. I'm not saying that every illegal gun is stolen from a home (though many are), there are other avenues that brings guns into the hands of criminals, and ALL would be affected in some way by gun control.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

Hoobinator

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

That it comes with a lot of responsibility.

Something parents seem to be forgetting these days.

When was the last time you have seen a dad teaches his 8yr old girl how to shoot a 50 caliber machine gun?

Never.

smokeydabear076

you know what happens when a grown man shoots a .50 cal machine gun?

he gets blown the f$#$ back. that's why theyr'e mounted machine guns.

a little girl wouldn't even be able to pull the trigger.

just setting the record strait.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Mikeyspikey0

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

Firstly I don't classify BB Guns as being real firearms. :|

Secondly I never said you couldn't partake in a firing range or even enjoy it. Read what MrBojangles actually wrote, he is viewing guns as a "recreational device" which they most certainly are not. The manufacturers purpose, the essence of a gun is to kill.

All I was saying is would you teach your child that a gun is a piece of "fun" "recreational device"?, because that is when you start to diminish its inherent threat, danger and essence of what a gun was designed to do.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

ImaPirate0202

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

That it comes with a lot of responsibility.

Something parents seem to be forgetting these days.

You wouldn't teach your child to play with fire. At least not any responsible parent.

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

Hoobinator

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

That it comes with a lot of responsibility.

Something parents seem to be forgetting these days.

You wouldn't teach your child to play with fire. At least not any responsible parent.

Well of course not, that's just stupid.

But I would take him hunting with me. Just like my father did.

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

Hoobinator

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

That it comes with a lot of responsibility.

Something parents seem to be forgetting these days.

You wouldn't teach your child to play with fire. At least not any responsible parent.

By saying "play with fire" you make it sound reckless. You can be taught how to use fire in a responsible way. In fact, I'm a chef and I use fire in a responsible way every single day. And I would teach that to my kids.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

Hoobinator

I was thinking more in terms of manufacturers when they make these weapons. What goes through their minds. In their minds, with the original purpose the aim is simple, to kill. Simple as that. The essence of a gun is to kill, that is its objective. The firing mechanism is a means to an end i.e. it should shoot straight, reach its designated target etc

Secondly I objected mostly to MrBojangles25 idea that guns are "recreational devices" as much as for defence. Plainly wrong. When you start to see them as anything other than their sole deadly purpose you're in shaky grounds, psychologically you're viewing them as instruments of fun. I'm not saying you can't have fun with a gun, you may well take satisfaction from shooting a gun, but to diminish their inherent danger by viewing them in "recreational" terms is when things start to go wrong.

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

What goes through their mind is that they have a market and can turn a profit...same as any business.

Second, you should teach children the inherit danger and responsibility of using a firearm.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

He feels there is a point that aids his opinion in the fact that gun violence rose by 4%, though overall crime rates fell by 6%.

I guess the continuing fact that gun violence rose is irrelevant to him. :?

LJS9502_basic

I suppose because it undermines the basis of his opinion...

Actually, it supports my opinion, but it is better for yours if you just read his sound-bite rather than my link. Bloody forum arguments.

It undermines your opinion since the UK has gun control. Therefore, the fact that gun crimes are increasing is not in line with your argument that control is the answer.:|

Gun crime was up in the UK 4% this year, but down 22% as a 5 year average. Also, murders and rapes (using guns, there are of course other ways) are WAY low per capita when comparing the 2 countries.

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I can shoot a gun off to let off some steam, no one needs to be harmed in the process and I call that recreational.smokeydabear076

Cocaine is also meant to be recreational, and doesn't necessariy have to harm anybody else. The problem is, life and reality don't follow that program.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

brianpoetzel

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

That it comes with a lot of responsibility.

Something parents seem to be forgetting these days.

You wouldn't teach your child to play with fire. At least not any responsible parent.

By saying "play with fire" you make it sound reckless. You can be taught how to use fire in a responsible way. In fact, I'm a chef and I use fire in a responsible way every single day. And I would teach that to my kids.

But you would never see fire as anything other than being inherently dangerous. Yes it can be controlled, but never the less even in controlled circumstances fire is still a dangerous entity. That is showing a certain respect for fire, something which is lacking from MrBojangles25 observation that guns are as much "recreational devices" as for defence.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Hoobinator

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

did I say toy? No, I didnt. But it does say a lot about why banning guns is a bad issue.

And purpose 2 is completely wrong. You dont threaten people one bit. Havent you heard the saying "dont point a gun at anything you dont intend to shoot"? (note that I said shoot, not kill).

With that said, many countries have a long and beautiful history of competative shooting. This is shown by the fact that many firearms companies produce small-caliber guns specifically for target shooting, and not for killing. And lets not forget that guns are tools as much as they are weapons; especially in America, guns were needed to provide food for a person. While this isnt true so much anymore, guns have remained a tool used for hunting and target shooting. Guns are even used during the Winter Olympics!

Anyone who bashes guns, and has not actually shot a gun at a target, should definately give it a try. It may not change your mind, but you will get a bit of perspective on why people like to own them.

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

brianpoetzel

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

That it comes with a lot of responsibility.

Something parents seem to be forgetting these days.

You wouldn't teach your child to play with fire. At least not any responsible parent.

By saying "play with fire" you make it sound reckless. You can be taught how to use fire in a responsible way. In fact, I'm a chef and I use fire in a responsible way every single day. And I would teach that to my kids.

And if that was all there was to it regarding the gun issue, that would be perfectly reasonable. But it's not all there is to it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

He feels there is a point that aids his opinion in the fact that gun violence rose by 4%, though overall crime rates fell by 6%.

I guess the continuing fact that gun violence rose is irrelevant to him. :?

dsmccracken

I suppose because it undermines the basis of his opinion...

Actually, it supports my opinion, but it is better for yours if you just read his sound-bite rather than my link. Bloody forum arguments.

It undermines your opinion since the UK has gun control. Therefore, the fact that gun crimes are increasing is not in line with your argument that control is the answer.:|

Gun crime was up in the UK 4% this year, but down 22% as a 5 year average. Also, murders and rapes (using guns, there are of course other ways) are WAY low per capita when comparing the 2 countries.

1.) The point is gun crime JUMPED in the year when guns were BANNED. Not before. By your own admission, before the "gun ban", gun crimes were on the decline. They only jumped the year guns were banned entirely.

2.) Murders and rapes using guns were always lower per capita in the UK than the US. So any point being made to show how "teh UK isn't on teh list!" could have been made before guns were banned.

What goes through their mind is that they have a market and can turn a profit...same as any business.

Second, you should teach children the inherit danger and responsibility of using a firearm.

LJS9502_basic

That's pretty much what I was getting at. By seeing them as much as recreational devices rather than the inherently dangerous weapons that they are you are not teaching your children a very sensible message. Guns should always be seen as dangerous weapons, regardless of what you do with them, much like fire should always be viewed as being dangerous no matter how under control it may seem.

ban guns we will use knives. you ban knives we will choketgh93_29

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I can shoot a gun off to let off some steam, no one needs to be harmed in the process and I call that recreational.dsmccracken

Cocaine is also meant to be recreational, and doesn't necessariy have to harm anybody else. The problem is, life and reality don't follow that program.

No, cocaine is meant to be a highly addictive, extremely dangerous narcotic that tries to enslave those who take part.

Cocaine is a bad example.

But you would never see fire as anything other than being inherently dangerous. Yes it can be controlled, but never the less even in controlled circumstances fire is still a dangerous entity. That is showing a certain respect for fire, something which is lacking from MrBojangles25 observation that guns are as much "recreational devices" as for defence.Hoobinator

I think that the real issue here is not whether guns, like fire, can be safe and controlled when treated with respect and sound judgement. It is that those two words don't describe everyone packing heat.

[QUOTE="brianpoetzel"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

The purpose of a firearm is to fire a bullet. One can use the gun to fire at targets. It's perfectly legitimate and recreational. There is no killing involved. The use of the weapon is up to the individual.

Hoobinator

What sort of message would it send a child if you were to teach him a gun is as much a means of "fun" as it is a deadly weapon whos sole initial purpose was only to kill?

That it comes with a lot of responsibility.

Something parents seem to be forgetting these days.

You wouldn't teach your child to play with fire. At least not any responsible parent.

By saying "play with fire" you make it sound reckless. You can be taught how to use fire in a responsible way. In fact, I'm a chef and I use fire in a responsible way every single day. And I would teach that to my kids.

But you would never see fire as anything other than being inherently dangerous. Yes it can be controlled, but never the less even in controlled circumstances fire is still a dangerous entity. That is showing a certain respect for fire, something which is lacking from MrBojangles25 observation that guns are as much "recreational devices" as for defence.

Anything can be dangerous if not shown the proper respect, not just fire or guns.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

He feels there is a point that aids his opinion in the fact that gun violence rose by 4%, though overall crime rates fell by 6%.

I guess the continuing fact that gun violence rose is irrelevant to him. :?

Dreams-Visions

I suppose because it undermines the basis of his opinion...

Actually, it supports my opinion, but it is better for yours if you just read his sound-bite rather than my link. Bloody forum arguments.

It undermines your opinion since the UK has gun control. Therefore, the fact that gun crimes are increasing is not in line with your argument that control is the answer.:|

Gun crime was up in the UK 4% this year, but down 22% as a 5 year average. Also, murders and rapes (using guns, there are of course other ways) are WAY low per capita when comparing the 2 countries.

1.) The point is gun crime JUMPED in the year when guns were BANNED. Not before. By your own admission, before the "gun ban", gun crimes were on the decline. They only jumped the year guns were banned entirely.

2.) Murders and rapes using guns were always lower per capita in the UK than the US. So any point being made to show how "teh UK isn't on teh list!" could have been made before guns were banned.

You have a point on part 2. On part one, the ban didn't just come into effect. The five year decline I mentioned is all within the period since the ban.

[QUOTE="tgh93_29"]ban guns we will use knives. you ban knives we will chokeFlaminDeath

The reality is that people killed before guns. They will also kill with guns whether they are banned or not, just as people will smoke weed even though it's illegal. Making guns "illegal" in the US (which would, of course, never happen) would only create a black market and a citizery that can't protect themselves.

[QUOTE="tgh93_29"]ban guns we will use knives. you ban knives we will chokeFlaminDeath

Wisdom, but not the whole truth unfortunately. Without guns, other alternatives will be found, but not in such outrageous numbers. Guns just make it too easy.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

1.) The point is gun crime JUMPED in the year when guns were BANNED. Not before. By your own admission, before the "gun ban", gun crimes were on the decline. They only jumped the year guns were banned entirely.

2.) Murders and rapes using guns were always lower per capita in the UK than the US. So any point being made to show how "teh UK isn't on teh list!" could have been made before guns were banned.

dsmccracken

You have a point on part 2. On part one, the ban didn't just come into effect. The five year decline I mentioned is all within the period since the ban.

I see. Thanks for the info. When did the ban come into effect, then? 2001? 2002?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I can shoot a gun off to let off some steam, no one needs to be harmed in the process and I call that recreational.Dreams-Visions

Cocaine is also meant to be recreational, and doesn't necessariy have to harm anybody else. The problem is, life and reality don't follow that program.

No, cocaine is meant to be a highly addictive, extremely dangerous narcotic that tries to enslave those who take part.

Cocaine is a bad example.

Nothing is a perfect example. Cocaine is example enough for those who see it, worthless and offbase for those who don't. Sounds like System Wars.

[QUOTE="FlaminDeath"][QUOTE="tgh93_29"]ban guns we will use knives. you ban knives we will chokedsmccracken

Wisdom, but not the whole truth unfortunately. Without guns, other alternatives will be found, but not in such outrageous numbers. Guns just make it too easy.

Pandora's Box is already open. Guns aren't going anywhere. So where to now?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

1.) The point is gun crime JUMPED in the year when guns were BANNED. Not before. By your own admission, before the "gun ban", gun crimes were on the decline. They only jumped the year guns were banned entirely.

2.) Murders and rapes using guns were always lower per capita in the UK than the US. So any point being made to show how "teh UK isn't on teh list!" could have been made before guns were banned.

Dreams-Visions

You have a point on part 2. On part one, the ban didn't just come into effect. The five year decline I mentioned is all within the period since the ban.

I see. Thanks for the info. When did the ban come into effect, then? 2001? 2002?

Ah hell, 1997? Not sure.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

mrbojangles25

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

did I say toy? No, I didnt. But it does say a lot about why banning guns is a bad issue.

And purpose 2 is completely wrong. You dont threaten people one bit. Havent you heard the saying "dont point a gun at anything you dont intend to shoot"? (note that I said shoot, not kill).

With that said, many countries have a long and beautiful history of competative shooting. This is shown by the fact that many firearms companies produce small-caliber guns specifically for target shooting, and not for killing. And lets not forget that guns are tools as much as they are weapons; especially in America, guns were needed to provide food for a person. While this isnt true so much anymore, guns have remained a tool used for hunting and target shooting. Guns are even used during the Winter Olympics!

Anyone who bashes guns, and has not actually shot a gun at a target, should definately give it a try. It may not change your mind, but you will get a bit of perspective on why people like to own them.

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

1. Guns are used everyday as threat to kill, as a means of force, i.e. the police, armed forces etc.

2. The example of agun being used as a tool was for the purpose of killing an animal. Reinforces my idea that guns are objects to kill with.

3. I never objected that you can't do other things with guns like shooting competitions or train with them, but their initial purpose of what a gun was made for still doesn't change. Every live firearm can injure or kill a person simple as that.

4. Well done for using a pointless analogy. A parachute is not the same as a gun. Last time I checked they weren't capable of killing a person.

[QUOTE="Mikeyspikey0"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Hoobinator

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

Firstly I don't classify BB Guns as being real firearms. :|

Secondly I never said you couldn't partake in a firing range or even enjoy it. Read what MrBojangles actually wrote, he is viewing guns as a "recreational device" which they most certainly are not. The manufacturers purpose, the essence of a gun is to kill.

All I was saying is would you teach your child that a gun is a piece of "fun" "recreational device"?, because that is when you start to diminish its inherent threat, danger and essence of what a gun was designed to do.

i think your logic is a bit flawed.

you wouldnt play soccer on a freeway, you'd play it on a field (maybe an empty parking lot).

you wouldnt play baseball on the edge of a cliff, you'd play it where you have some space to catch the ball.

And you wouldnt shoot a gun in a populated or unsafe area.

What do those three things have in common? Theyre all recreational activites and they all have a suitable place to conduct such activity.

You need to understand that people dont go to the gun shop with the purpose of buying a gun to kill people. They go to the gun shop to buy a gun to:

1. protect themselves (i.e. save life, not take it)
2. buy a gun because they collect them
3. by a gun because they like to shoot targets
4. buy a gun because they like to hunt

And the fact that you dont consider a BB gun a weapon is just plain idiotic. I know of only one person that has been shot, but I know plenty of people that have been shot with BB guns. Many people get seriously hurt as well, i.e. getting their eyes shot out.

The fact is, guns are as safe as the owner wants them to be. I dont want to sound cliche, but guns dont kill people, people kill people. Its true! If you tell your daughter that a gun is a toy and should be played with, then hand her some ammo, then of course she will likely hurt or even kill something. But is that poor gun control, or bad parenting?

Listen, the fact is this: if a person sets his or her mind to something, they can accomplish anything they want by any means. If this mind is applied to murder, then the murder will occur no matter what. The sooner we accept this and start targeting the source of the murder, and not the tool, the safer the world will be.

I dont want sound dramatic, but saying we should ban guns to keep us safe is like saying the Holocaust would never have occured if we banned Zykon B.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

[QUOTE="FlaminDeath"][QUOTE="tgh93_29"]ban guns we will use knives. you ban knives we will chokeDreams-Visions

Wisdom, but not the whole truth unfortunately. Without guns, other alternatives will be found, but not in such outrageous numbers. Guns just make it too easy.

Pandora's Box is already open. Guns aren't going anywhere. So where to now?

That is your catch 22. You know you don't want criminals with guns. You know you don't want 30,000 dying annually. But the 50% of Americans who own guns don't want to give them up, and that's too big a group to EVER get real momentum from politicians who need those people to get and stay elected. I know that you'd be better off without them, I know that it would be tough for awhile, an immediete disconnect between criminals and citizens that would lesson over time like it did everywhere else. I don't think you can just ban guns, not you guys, but to follow the NRAs advice and better enforce existing laws would be a start.

Little steps here and there, like the Assault Weapons stuff, couldn't hurt. Gun apologists say that the Assault Weapon label is a liberal bogeyman, a red herring. Even if true, removing one single class of weapons from all the many choices you currently have at your gun stores, how could it hurt? You can still pile up all your weapons on the lawn and make gun angels if you want. One step at a time, man.

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

mrbojangles25

I would argue that if skydiving were killing 30,000 a year in America, it would be banned so fast your head would spin.

What happens when we live in a totalitarian government and all of our rights to defend ourselves have been taken away? I bet you'd want a gun then...D9-THC

And a gun will save you from the military? Whilst I agree that people should be free to own guns, the situation is getting out of control. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated, or banned all together.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

Hoobinator

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

did I say toy? No, I didnt. But it does say a lot about why banning guns is a bad issue.

And purpose 2 is completely wrong. You dont threaten people one bit. Havent you heard the saying "dont point a gun at anything you dont intend to shoot"? (note that I said shoot, not kill).

With that said, many countries have a long and beautiful history of competative shooting. This is shown by the fact that many firearms companies produce small-caliber guns specifically for target shooting, and not for killing. And lets not forget that guns are tools as much as they are weapons; especially in America, guns were needed to provide food for a person. While this isnt true so much anymore, guns have remained a tool used for hunting and target shooting. Guns are even used during the Winter Olympics!

Anyone who bashes guns, and has not actually shot a gun at a target, should definately give it a try. It may not change your mind, but you will get a bit of perspective on why people like to own them.

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

1. Guns are used everyday as threat to kill, as a means of force, i.e. the police, armed forces etc.

2. The example of agun being used as a tool was for the purpose of killing an animal. Reinforces my idea that guns are objects to kill with.

3. I never objected that you can't do other things with guns like shooting competitions or train with them, but their initial purpose of what a gun was made for still doesn't change. Every live firearm can injure or kill a person simple as that.

4. Well done for using a pointless analogy. A parachute is not the same as a gun. Last time I checked they weren't capable of killing a person.

1. Yes, this is true. I never argued that guns dont kill, I merely argued that civilian gun ownership is often for recreational purposes, and should not be banned.

2. Yes, I know. See part 1. But the whole "killing an animal" is another moral debate for another time. I, for one, enjoy venison and duck so thats why I like to shoot.

3. No, you didnt object out right, but you implied. Something along the lines of "The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot". Thats what started the whole debate. Maybe next time you will voice your objection clearly or keep it to yourself. Either way, the debate has been started.

4. It was a half joke, but since you took it seriously allow me elaborate. If you look on a parachute, you will see a clear disclaimer from the manufacturer: "this parachute is a life saving device and by no means should be used for recreational purposes", or something along those lines. The point of my anology was this: both products have obvious intents made by their respective manufacturers, yet both are often used (more often than not, thank god) for more light-hearted recreational purposes. In short, guns are meant to kill people but more often than not they dont (in civilian hands), and parachutes are meant to save lives in emergencies only but they are rarely used in an emergency.

Would you like some more analogies? What about rice rockets? We see those commercials of a Subaru WRX and the disclaimer clearly says "dont try this at home" or something, but what do we do? We slap on a few hndred horsepower and try it at home.

The point I am trying to make is that while the technical purpose or intent of a product may be clearcut according to the manufacturer, the practical uses of many things are often quite different.

I dont want sound dramatic, but saying we should ban guns to keep us safe is like saying the Holocaust would never have occured if we banned Zykon B.

mrbojangles25

The holocaust is reality. 30,000 dead annually due to guns in America is reality. "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" is a slogan on a bumper sticker that obscures real discussion.

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]What happens when we live in a totalitarian government and all of our rights to defend ourselves have been taken away? I bet you'd want a gun then...sthadji

And a gun will save you from the military? Whilst I agree that people should be free to own guns, the situation is getting out of control. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated, or banned all together.

So screw the constitution?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

dsmccracken

I would argue that if skydiving were killing 30,000 a year in America, it would be banned so fast your head would spin.

How about vehicular homicide? Do you know how many that kills annually? Since some drive drunk and kill, your logic also demands that cars be banned. As well as alcohol.

Your thoughts on AIDS? Perhaps we should ban sex, since AIDS kills millions annually? Based on your logic, we should rethink it.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

mrbojangles25

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

did I say toy? No, I didnt. But it does say a lot about why banning guns is a bad issue.

And purpose 2 is completely wrong. You dont threaten people one bit. Havent you heard the saying "dont point a gun at anything you dont intend to shoot"? (note that I said shoot, not kill).

With that said, many countries have a long and beautiful history of competative shooting. This is shown by the fact that many firearms companies produce small-caliber guns specifically for target shooting, and not for killing. And lets not forget that guns are tools as much as they are weapons; especially in America, guns were needed to provide food for a person. While this isnt true so much anymore, guns have remained a tool used for hunting and target shooting. Guns are even used during the Winter Olympics!

Anyone who bashes guns, and has not actually shot a gun at a target, should definately give it a try. It may not change your mind, but you will get a bit of perspective on why people like to own them.

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

1. Guns are used everyday as threat to kill, as a means of force, i.e. the police, armed forces etc.

2. The example of agun being used as a tool was for the purpose of killing an animal. Reinforces my idea that guns are objects to kill with.

3. I never objected that you can't do other things with guns like shooting competitions or train with them, but their initial purpose of what a gun was made for still doesn't change. Every live firearm can injure or kill a person simple as that.

4. Well done for using a pointless analogy. A parachute is not the same as a gun. Last time I checked they weren't capable of killing a person.

1. Yes, this is true. I never argued that guns dont kill, I merely argued that civilian gun ownership is often for recreational purposes, and should not be banned.

2. Yes, I know. See part 1. But the whole "killing an animal" is another moral debate for another time. I, for one, enjoy venison and duck so thats why I like to shoot.

3. No, you didnt object out right, but you implied. Something along the lines of "The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot". Thats what started the whole debate. Maybe next time you will voice your objection clearly or keep it to yourself. Either way, the debate has been started.

4. It was a half joke, but since you took it seriously allow me elaborate. If you look on a parachute, you will see a clear disclaimer from the manufacturer: "this parachute is a life saving device and by no means should be used for recreational purposes", or something along those lines. The point of my anology was this: both products have obvious intents made by their respective manufacturers, yet both are often used (more often than not, thank god) for more light-hearted recreational purposes. In short, guns are meant to kill people but more often than not they dont (in civilian hands), and parachutes are meant to save lives in emergencies only but they are rarely used in an emergency.

Would you like some more analogies? What about rice rockets? We see those commercials of a Subaru WRX and the disclaimer clearly says "dont try this at home" or something, but what do we do? We slap on a few hndred horsepower and try it at home.

The point I am trying to make is that while the technical purpose or intent of a product may be clearcut according to the manufacturer, the practical uses of many things are often quite different.

Again, if skydiving or driving Rice Rockets killed 30,000 annually, action would be immediete.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

I dont want sound dramatic, but saying we should ban guns to keep us safe is like saying the Holocaust would never have occured if we banned Zykon B.

dsmccracken

The holocaust is reality. 30,000 dead annually due to guns in America is reality. "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" is a slogan on a bumper sticker that obscures real discussion.

"Cars don't kill people, People kill people" is also a fair slogan. Irresponsible, negligent ownership will always lead to deaths. Some will even seek to kill with cars.

Shall we rethink the legality of cars? Perhaps we should all be forced to take the subway, since a hand full of nutjobs can't control their emo-ness.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

dsmccracken

I would argue that if skydiving were killing 30,000 a year in America, it would be banned so fast your head would spin.

ya, but do 30000 people actively skydive? I dont think so, most people do it once and call it a day. There might be, idunno, 2500 people in the US that skydive 5 or more times per month, and I am sure the death ratio for them is higher than it is for gun users.

I could be wrong, but I hope you can see my point.

Anyway, we are not arguing numbers here. it could be 10 deaths or a million....we are arguing over principles here.

[QUOTE="sthadji"]

[QUOTE="D9-THC"]What happens when we live in a totalitarian government and all of our rights to defend ourselves have been taken away? I bet you'd want a gun then...Dreams-Visions

And a gun will save you from the military? Whilst I agree that people should be free to own guns, the situation is getting out of control. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated, or banned all together.

So screw the constitution?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

You need to quit thinking in black and white. The world is full of grey scenarios, and gun control is one of them. Next youre going to tell me that skydiving should be banned because parachutes should be used for emergencies only and not for recreation ;)

dsmccracken

I would argue that if skydiving were killing 30,000 a year in America, it would be banned so fast your head would spin.

How about vehicular homicide? Do you know how many that kills annually? Since some drive drunk and kill, your logic also demands that cars be banned. As well as alcohol.

Your thoughts on AIDS? Perhaps we should ban sex, since AIDS kills millions annually? Based on your logic, we should rethink it.

Gun control =/= outright banning necessarily. I've said that in this thread already. You can't ban cars, but you can excercise "car control" like with forcing seatbelts. You can't ban sex, but hell, I can go out on a limb and say people with AIDS probably should be.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="Mikeyspikey0"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And I will be honest: guns are fun to shoot. They are as much a recreational device as they are a tool for defense.

mrbojangles25

Guns are made with only 2 purposes in mind:

1. To Kill.
2. Threaten to kill.

The fact that you view them as a recreational hobby or a "toy" says a lot.

Firstly I don't classify BB Guns as being real firearms. :|

Secondly I never said you couldn't partake in a firing range or even enjoy it. Read what MrBojangles actually wrote, he is viewing guns as a "recreational device" which they most certainly are not. The manufacturers purpose, the essence of a gun is to kill.

All I was saying is would you teach your child that a gun is a piece of "fun" "recreational device"?, because that is when you start to diminish its inherent threat, danger and essence of what a gun was designed to do.

i think your logic is a bit flawed.

you wouldnt play soccer on a freeway, you'd play it on a field (maybe an empty parking lot).

you wouldnt play baseball on the edge of a cliff, you'd play it where you have some space to catch the ball.

And you wouldnt shoot a gun in a populated or unsafe area.

What do those three things have in common? Theyre all recreational activites and they all have a suitable place to conduct such activity.

You need to understand that people dont go to the gun shop with the purpose of buying a gun to kill people. They go to the gun shop to buy a gun to:

1. protect themselves (i.e. save life, not take it)
2. buy a gun because they collect them
3. by a gun because they like to shoot targets
4. buy a gun because they like to hunt

And the fact that you dont consider a BB gun a weapon is just plain idiotic. I know of only one person that has been shot, but I know plenty of people that have been shot with BB guns. Many people get seriously hurt as well, i.e. getting their eyes shot out.

The fact is, guns are as safe as the owner wants them to be. I dont want to sound cliche, but guns dont kill people, people kill people. Its true! If you tell your daughter that a gun is a toy and should be played with, then hand her some ammo, then of course she will likely hurt or even kill something. But is that poor gun control, or bad parenting?

Listen, the fact is this: if a person sets his or her mind to something, they can accomplish anything they want by any means. If this mind is applied to murder, then the murder will occur no matter what. The sooner we accept this and start targeting the source of the murder, and not the tool, the safer the world will be.

I dont want sound dramatic, but saying we should ban guns to keep us safe is like saying the Holocaust would never have occured if we banned Zykon B.

Again you're conflating user purpose with essence. The essence of a firearm is to kill, that is what its designers had it mind, that is what it was built for.

I never said you couldn't do other things with your gun, but the inherent deadly purpose of a gun can never be taken away from it. In this regard it is like fire, no matter how under control it is, it is still dangerous. Yes you can collect them, practice with them, shoot targets, shove them up your ass whatever, they are still dangerous objects. That was my main point of contention, to de-threaten the nature of the gun was to show it a certain disrespect.

Also I don't count BB Guns as live firearms because they're not. BB Guns bar absolute freakish accidents cannot kill people. Yes there are exceptions to this. They are not on the same danger level as a live firearm.

Again, if skydiving or driving Rice Rockets killed 30,000 annually, action would be immediete.

dsmccracken

Motor vehicle crashes were responsible for 43,000 deaths in 2000.