Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[cody1smith]

Originally Posted by Kaneyoufeelit

Intent matters because anything can be used as a weapon. The argument isn't how can we make sure nobody is ever murdered again. Clearly that isn't going to happen. Guns exist to kill and any other use is secondary to the purpose of a gun. The other things have primary beneficial purposes and yes sometimes can be used to kill. I'm curious do you think people should be allowed to own hand grenades, bombs, tanks, etc? And if not, what is your reasoning for it? How and where do you draw the line between guns and things that, I'm hoping, you believe/realize have no business being in the possession of ordinary citizens.

I have a very good friend who started and built a gun manufacturing business in the town where i live. And the primary purpose of the guns is competition shooting. Not killing

[OutintheBend]

Originally Posted by Kaneyoufeelit

And people who kill somebody clearly are not deterred by it. Hence murders.

Making it more difficult to get a gun can deter someone or at least make them proceed in a way that gives the victim a better chance at surviving the attempt.

Giving the victim a chance to defend himself would also give the victim a better chance at surviving the attempt.

[pkt77242]

Originally Posted by OutintheBend

... So people are willing to obtain thing and break laws why would that be any different if all of america had the laws? Because its a little harder to obtain? Newsflash: people with bad intentions can acquire things that are banned.

The constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If we want to change that lets propose a constitutional amendment. We should also ban long kitchen knifes, and any other thing that can be used harmfully while we're at it. Cars are pretty dangerous.

I will say this once and only once. When the constitution was written, they couldn't even dream of things like assault rifles. They had muskets that fired one shot and then took a minute plus to reload. Also they didn't have a standing army so the idea centered around the people being part of the militia that would protect the US.

[pkt77242]

Originally Posted by OutintheBend

Giving the victim a chance to defend himself would also give the victim a better chance at surviving the attempt.

So you want to arm 6 year olds? Nice.

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Originally Posted by OutintheBend

.... isn't your first sentence a paradox. Anything can be used to kill so clearly its the intent of the object that matters?

My guns and domerinhappyvalley's guns are intended to kill paper and elk. That is the primary purpose. Hand grenades, bombs, tanks aren't guaranteed under the constitution and can't be directed at a single target easily. I don't support them being available to citizens. They also aren't intended to kill paper and elk.

What is the intent of a car in the hands of someone who wants to kill them self and someone else?

No it's not a paradox; try again.

And I don't care what YOU intend to kill with it the point is that guns are manufacture to kill things. Obviously the object to be killed matters, maybe that's where you didn't follow my argument.

Your gun does not intend to kill anything, for the record. You do. Your gun is indiscriminate about what it shoots at. However, because it's indiscriminate it does not become less lethal when someone who has the intent to kill something other than a deer picks it up.

Without touching the 2nd amendment because I don't want that headache, the only line you draw is that a gun can be more easily directed at a single target than the others? You acknowledge the deadly nature of guns and rest your argument on aim? I can use a similar line to back the ban up to exclude guns because with a gun I can kill you from a distance. With a car or a knife I must be right up next to you. See where this is going?

[OutintheBend]

Originally Posted by pkt77242

I will say this once and only once. When the constitution was written, they couldn't even dream of things like assault rifles. They had muskets that fired one shot and then took a minute plus to reload. Also they didn't have a standing army so the idea centered around the people being part of the militia that would protect the US.

Say it as many times as you want. I doubt they envisioned that military technology would stop at where it was then. They had just defended themselves against an oppressive government and that was what they were trying to protect. The right of each individual (and a freesociety) to protect themselves.

[OutintheBend]

Originally Posted by pkt77242

So you want to arm 6 year olds? Nice.

Arming some of the 24-60 year olds would have been sufficient in my mind.