First off let's try to keep this civil. I'm not a "hate-mongering right-wing flag-waving Christian gun nut" and your not a "heathen baby-killin' left wing hippie faggot" and what or who we are is not up for debate. This is meant to be a (hopefullly) civil discussion about our country and it's gun laws. Also it is a debate of what we believe to be the correct way to arm or disarm the public. So here's my piece: Now take note because your not gonna hear a lot of gun rights supporters say this. Guns were meant for one thing and one thing only: to kill people Thats right from the Chinese who used rudamentary muskets to hurl river stones at their enemies to the M-249 SAW that the military uses to mow down their enemies at 900 rounds a minute there has not been a pattern or developement in the field of firearms that hasn't been first used on the battlefield. Thats right the bolt action hunters now use to slay deer was developed to first kill people as was the flintlock, the semi-automatic, and the machine gun. I say this to prove to you that I am not ignorant of the fact that while guns themselves don't kill people they sure help facilitate it. But yet I support the second amendment whole-heartedly and heres why: Sometimes it is necissary to kill people. Most folks would agree that every creature has a right to defend itself. Including humans. Do I honestly believe I'm going to be mugged tomorow? or have some criminal break into my home and kill my family? Not really. But I own more military pattern rifles than hunting rifles, my shotgun is the one that most police stations use, and yes I own a handgun. I'm not paranoid about criminals. I own guns to protect myself from a far more dangerouse criminal than your average mugger. I own guns to protect myself from the stete. Thomas Jefferson observed that guns are liberty's teeth and I think he hit the nail right on the head. We need to remember that governments kill far more people than criminals ever could. You can talk all you want about freedom and libery, you can listen to your NOfx cds and scream at the top of your lungs but history has taught us that these things really don't make any differance when your being loaded onto a box car. What if every time Stalin's secret police went out to carry someone away to a gulag one of those secret police caught a bullet to the face. On April 19th 1943 a group of 1200 jews held off a force of 2000 elite SS troops in a warsaw ghetto for 28 days. When the smoke cleared 300 germans lay dead and more than 1000 wounded. These brave men and women were killed to the last man, but they never served a day in a Nazi concentration camp. I truly believe that liberty and freedom should be preserved at all costs. I believe it is better to live one day as a lion than a thousand lifetimes as a lamb. As to the question of crime rate: here's and interesting statistic for you. In El Paso, Texas there were 3 murders last year. In Juarez just across the border there were 1500. Guess which city allows gun possession and open carry and guess which one prohibits private firearms possession? When Florida began instituting concealed carry laws similar to Vermont the violent crime rate dropped dramaticallty for the first time in years. And lets take Switzerland for example, they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world and almost all of their citizens have a fully automatic assult rifle IN THEIR HOMES. For every tragic mass shooting there is another example of one being stopped or inhibited by a good citizen who was armed. Police (who aren't even obligated by the law to respond to an emergency I might add) can send a police cruiser to stop a school shooting at between 40 and 80 miles an hour. A .45 can send a bullet to stop a shooting at 800 miles an hour. So what do you guys and gals think?
There's not much of a debate. Gun ownership is a right, whether people like it or not. If they don't understand why. They have some growing up to do, and history to study.
Also, you make a mistake in your foundation. Guns are made for many reasons OTHER than killing people. For example, I own a .22 pistol that is specifically for target shooting. Since that is so foundational to your argument, it seriously undermines your argument.
I understand that there are many guns used for many different purposes the point that I was making was that the original development of firearms technology has been to kill people. While the .22 wouldn't make a very good man slayer the platform it was developed on (ie bolt action, semi auto, hinge action) were initially military developments.
That would be a genetic fallacy. The Jet Engine was also designed for military purposes, to kill people. So were many medical innovations.
Very well i retract the argument tor the caliber of weaponry but lets not kid ourselves as to the original purpose a vast majority of firearms served. Also this is a debate for weapons legalization we can debate semantics another time.
yeah, there's not going to be much of a debate here, I don't think... we don't have a large anti-gun contingency here. allow me to me repeat this old cliche... "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."
Since forcing a harmless plant like cannabis onto the black market increases the danger significantly, I would think it would be common sense to keep already potentially dangerous tools like guns out of it (The black market). Unless that is what you want, to make the sale and ownership of guns lucreative and dangerous (More so then it already is).
A .22 was also used to assassinate Robert F. Kennedy. A .22 was used in the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. A .22 was used in the mob execution of Sam Giancana. .22 revolvers were apparently used widely throughout the Civil War .22s are often used in mob-related shootings and homicides as well as other similar gang-land violence Navy SEALs are issued .22s The American OSS made common use of .22s In fact, .22s are actually ideal for situational, close-range, homicides (assassinations/executions). They are small and compact, and thus easy to conceal, they produce low muzzle flash, minimal recoil and sound, and are one of the easiest and most efficient guns to suppress. Additionally the ammunition has a tendency to enter and not exit the body of the victim, instead bouncing around within the body which can cause severe internal damage to maximize killing potential.
You continue to make the genetic fallacy. You might find looking it up on wiki helpful. Also, on a website where most every individual adopts the position that government intrusion to protect us from ourselves, be it with firearms or marijuana, is bad... well, you're not going to find much support for government intrusion to protection is from ourselves.
My statement serves to refute his point about the intended purpose of firearms. There are firearms whose intended purposes is not taking of human lives. I provided one example. I don't deny that .22s can take lives. I do deny his premise.
Is intended purpose of a specific type of gun relevant to the topic if it still possesses a similar level of killing-power as any other gun? Cars are not intended to kill but automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death in America. Guns on the other hand, by conception, are generally designed to kill. Granted his wording may be a little flawed in his use of "one thing only", but again, generally speaking guns are designed and meant to provide an efficient means of killing. But I think, semantics aside, his general premise holds true for the purposes of this specific topic... even if there's not going to be much of a debate about this topic on this particular forum.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your line of thinking, but I do disagree with his, because he premised the rest of his argument on the "one thing only" approach and on the original intended purpose of the original firearms were (I'm accepting his word on that, I don't know why the Chinese invented firearms, it could have been to scare panda bears). I'm not saying other then that in my above posts. I was just critiquing the particular argument that he made since it had a major fallacy.
I admit the fallicy and retract it. Guns facilitate more than JUST killing people. I honestly thought there'd be more of a debate on this forum about this.
Why did you think that? Tbh, I figure there won't be much of a debate, given the general nature of this particular forum and the respective political attitudes of those who frequent it. But there may be some people around here who are pro-gun regulation, if only because of their partisan politics. I know there are several dems who frequent this particular board, but I've never heard them speak for gun regulation. Then again, gun regulation really hasn't been on the forefront of the Democratic agenda lately, what with healthcare reform, the green movement, and the economy being some of the top issues at the moment.
If I were running my own country I would have guns illegal to own for all citizens. Since many people enjoy target shooting, there would be shooting ranges that carried the guns. I understand though that this kind of change is not really realistic for America but I think it's the best way to deal with guns.
That'd be a hell of an effort to pull off, as you'd have to effectively control the blackmarket trade of guns as well. What about other weapons? Knives? Tasers? Alcohol for molatavs(sp?)? Chemicals that can be used to create homemade explosives? Etc.
I think it's worth consider the impaired emotional and sexual growth and maturity of those who have a fear of weapons and guns, especially those who seek to deny them to others. I also think it's no accident that those who have such impaired emotional and sexual maturity congregate in one political party: seeking to control what others can and can not do, insisting that good intentions justify all actions, willing to experiment recklessly with the social order and let others clean up the mess after them, focused on being liked by the other 'kids on the block' in the world no matter the consequences, being given things for free by others and not understanding or caring where the things or the money comes from... Well, we could go on about the Democratic party, but these actions aptly describe an insecure and bratty child of about six years in age. They've simply managed to turn it into an entire political ideology. The only thing they're not demanding is that the crust be cut off the bread of their peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwiches.