Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[Kaneyoufeelit]

My gun is intended to kill paper. Why should the intent of it matter? Cars are intended to move from place to place but too often kill people. Long kitchen knifes are intended to create delicious meals but can be used to kill people.

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.

 

[cody1smith]

Enforcing laws requires tons of money and last time i checked taxes are where the government gets its money.. you surely dont think that if we do vigorous background checks on everyone that wants to buy a gun to target shoot or quail hunt as well as put metal detectors and armed police at every school they wont need some more money do you? Remember there are already laws against killing people!!

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Raising taxes and creating new gun laws have nothing to do with each other. Just because they are both components of the democratic doesn't mean they have anything to do with each other. Taxes and socialism are completely different issues than that of gun control. I am a registered Republican and vote with the Republican party. But these issues are completely different.

I have tried to keep my cool and will attempt to make this post as most respectful as possible. Crazy people can't do crazy *** things if they don't have the ability to get their hands on MILITARY style guns. What the **** do people need military weapons for?? They are built and really only good for killing people.

Even if the implemented gun laws were required classes that served as information of gun safety, or more complete background checks, it would be a start.

What in your opinion is a military weapon? My deer rifle was the military cartridge for years and is larger than what is in use today.

 

[Downinthebend]

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? 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.

.... 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?

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Enforcing laws requires tons of money and last time i checked taxes are where the government gets its money.. you surely dont think that if we do vigorous background checks on everyone that wants to buy a gun to target shoot or quail hunt as well as put metal detectors and armed police at every school they wont need some more money do you? Remember there are already laws against killing people!!

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.

 

[cody1smith]

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

 

[Downinthebend]

Enforcing laws requires tons of money and last time i checked taxes are where the government gets its money.. you surely dont think that if we do vigorous background checks on everyone that wants to buy a gun to target shoot or quail hunt as well as put metal detectors and armed police at every school they wont need some more money do you? Remember there are already laws against killing people!!

I doubt it would cost 664 billion dollars to do that

 

[Downinthebend]

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]

... 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]

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]

.... 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?

 

[Downinthebend]

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.

 

[Downinthebend]

So you want to arm 6 year olds? Nice.

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

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

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

Or create a prisoner's dilemma. Maybe it would be better to all have guns. I won't draw my gun because my best chance for survival is to keep it away and you should do the same. But what do we do in a prisoner's dilemma? We don't trust the other person and when we don't trust the other person our best chance at survival is to draw the gun and fire. And we both do this.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

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.

Do you really believe that you need to protect yourself with a gun from the government? Further, if the government were "move against you" what kind of chance do you think you would have?

 

[IrishinSyria]

So, here's a question. How many gun owners on this board have had a gun pointed at them and or had to use a gun in self defense outside of military or police service?

I had a gun pointed at me and I'm alive partly because I didn't have a gun with me. A guard outside the Iranian embassy in Damascus pointed his AK at me and pulled the trigger, but there was nothing in the chamber so the upshot was a hollow metallic click. I raised my hands over my head and laughed at his "joke" but if I'd had a gun he probably would have been dead and I would have either ended up dead or in Syrian prison, which is worse than dead, after a short firefight with the rest of the embassy guards.

Point of the story is that the presence of guns dramatically raise the consequences of split second decisions. Very few people have the training, experience and skill to effectively employ firearms to the point where they might actually do any good. I know I don't, and I'm living at a COP in Afghanistan right now, so it's fair to say that I have better training than a good 70% of gun owners in the US.

Fact of the matter is that the only way a lot of these recent tragedies could have been worse is if a bunch of untrained people had pulled out guns and started shooting (especially in Colorado.) I actually think that people should be able to own weapons like AKs and ARs for hobby use and home defense, its concealed carry laws and laws forcing places like national parks to allow weapons that I think are crazy.

 

[Downinthebend]

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?

My gun that was manufactured from whereever is intended to kill paper. I don't kill anything. I shoot paper. Anyone with an intent to kill anything can use just about anything maliciously. As soon as a car comes into the hands of a psychopath the intent of that car is to kill someone. Intent isn't based on the object its based on the individual usage of the object.

Isn't the whole point the constitution? But i'll bite anyways. If the constitutions guaranteed the right to bear explosives, mines, and tankes, hell why not an airforce for individuals I would support it. If you want to change my opinion on that, pass an amendment changing it.

If the standard we want to ban things are is the level of dangerousness it can cause to others, Lets ban all cars. I'd rather have a horse drawn carriage running at me than a car. At least I'd have time to get the **** away from the carriage.

 

[Downinthebend]

Or create a prisoner's dilemma. Maybe it would be better to all have guns. I won't draw my gun because my best chance for survival is to keep it away and you should do the same. But what do we do in a prisoner's dilemma? We don't trust the other person and when we don't trust the other person our best chance at survival is to draw the gun and fire. And we both do this.

If i'm going around murdering please shoot me.

 

[pkt77242]

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

Really? Give me a handgun and I can hit a targe from 20 yards center mass 9/10 times on my worst day but have someone shooting at me and chances are I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. So that just means more bullets getting sprayed around. Also what happens when a student gets a hold of one of those guns and shoots another student with it? How about we just hire 2 police officers for every school, people who are trained for that type of situation instead of arming teachers and administrators.

 

[goldandblue]

Guns are great. I own 10 or 15. One of the only laws/regulations I would support would be a maximum clip size. That allows me to keep my guns as they are including assault rifles but satisfy the people that want tighter gun regulations. I would have no problem with a maximum clip of 10 or 15 rounds.

 

[Downinthebend]

Do you really believe that you need to protect yourself with a gun from the government? Further, if the government were "move against you" what kind of chance do you think you would have?

I think Bin ***** lasted awhile against the most powerful country on earth, also ruby ridge wasn't a walkover. I think a tyrannical government would seriously think twice before pissing off its populace if they all had guns. Imagine Mubarak's Egypt all having guns when the protesters were shot at. Or pick a better example. A goverment is being tyrannical to a certain are of the country and imposing stuff like taxes on tea.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

My gun that was manufactured from whereever is intended to kill paper. I don't kill anything. I shoot paper. Anyone with an intent to kill anything can use just about anything maliciously. As soon as a car comes into the hands of a psychopath the intent of that car is to kill someone. Intent isn't based on the object its based on the individual usage of the object.

Isn't the whole point the constitution? But i'll bite anyways. If the constitutions guaranteed the right to bear explosives, mines, and tankes, hell why not an airforce for individuals I would support it. If you want to change my opinion on that, pass an amendment changing it.

If the standard we want to ban things are is the level of dangerousness it can cause to others, Lets ban all cars. I'd rather have a horse drawn carriage running at me than a car. At least I'd have time to get the **** away from the carriage.

I've answered this.

The Constitution has been and can be changed. By how the SCOTUS interprets it or by amendment, it can be changed. Other than that I have no idea what the second paragraph meant.

I think you are really missing my points. Might be my fault. Regardless, I'm finished.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I think Bin ***** lasted awhile against the most powerful country on earth, also ruby ridge wasn't a walkover. I think a tyrannical government would seriously think twice before pissing off its populace if they all had guns. Imagine Mubarak's Egypt all having guns when the protesters were shot at. Or pick a better example. A goverment is being tyrannical to a certain are of the country and imposing stuff like taxes on tea.

Again, do you really think you need to protect yourself from the government? Do you view the US government in this way?

 

[cody1smith]

Really? Give me a handgun and I can hit a targe from 20 yards center mass 9/10 times on my worst day but have someone shooting at me and chances are I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. So that just means more bullets getting sprayed around. Also what happens when a student gets a hold of one of those guns and shoots another student with it? How about we just hire 2 police officers for every school, people who are trained for that type of situation instead of arming teachers and administrators.

Hell lets put a few from each branch of the military there along with some firemen in case someone brings some matches. Oh and as someone told me earlier making laws has nothing to do with taxes so we can do all this with zero tax hike.

 

[Downinthebend]

Again, do you really think you need to protect yourself from the government? Do you view the US government in this way?

Depends if they start taxing my tea. I think governments can flux over time. I don't think I need to have my gun loaded for anything other than paper at the moment, but I'm not naive enough to assume that will always be the case.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Hell lets put a few from each branch of the military there along with some firemen in case someone brings some matches. Oh and as someone told me earlier making laws has nothing to do with taxes so we can do all this with zero tax hike.

so I'm guessing you don't have school resource officers in your area.

 

[phgreek]

I respect your side. I'm for gun control, just no clue on how to do it. I see pros and cons for both sides. I wish I had a better, more intelligent answer. It just sucks.

I understand the want for control of something...

I'm for changing things that simply don't make sense. To me, assault rifles were designed for combat...offensive posture. I don't mind civilians having them, so long as they are civilianized...to some degree they already are...can't really have an automatic weapon. The thing to me that was a mistake is failing to manage capacity of direct inject ammunition...that needs to be addressed....but I also think this is best handled at the state level.

 

[goldandblue]

I understand the want for control of something...

I'm for changing things that simply don't make sense. To me, assault rifles were designed for combat...offensive posture. I don't mind civilians having them, so long as they are civilianized...to some degree they already are...can't really have an automatic weapon. The thing to me that was a mistake is failing to manage capacity of direct inject ammunition...that needs to be addressed....but I also think this is best handled at the state level.

Good intelligent post. Reps.

 

[pkt77242]

If i'm going around murdering please shoot me.

I would but I would probably miss by a wide margin and hit a innocent person.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I understand the want for control of something...

I'm for changing things that simply don't make sense. To me, assault rifles were designed for combat...offensive posture. I don't mind civilians having them, so long as they are civilianized...to some degree they already are...can't really have an automatic weapon. The thing to me that was a mistake is failing to manage capacity of direct inject ammunition...that needs to be addressed....but I also think this is best handled at the state level.

Care to explain why you think this would be better handled at the state level?

Do you think that it should be something completely left for states to decide to do on their own, or do you think that the federal government should give guidelines and leave it up to the states to write conforming laws, or......?