Guns, pros and cons!

[Roark_John]

Back in the 1980's a good friend of mine was shot and killed in an argument over a software program.

If the person who killed him had to go and whip up some germs instead of just grabing his gun my dear friend would stll be alive.

I'm sorry for your loss. This is still not an indictment against responsible gun ownership or use. This is an idictment against criminal behavior and irrational responses to an internal emotional reaction.

You can take the hairless ape out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the hairless ape...

 

[Jim Craik]

No it's an indictment against guns!

 

[Roark_John]

No it's an indictment against guns!

FUCK...you are a dense man, Jim. I don't know how you have made it very far in life with that mentality.

BLAME THE PERSON, NOT THE TOOL!!!

Jesus titty-fucking Christ man...that whack-job did it, not the gun! If he had a screwdriver in his hand when the argument started, he likely would have jabbed that in your friend's neck instead!

Your reasoning and mentality are the problem...not guns. Get over yourself and you'll be able to place blame squarely where it belongs...on the monsters that commit the act, not the tools they use to do it!

 

[Graham]

FUCK...you are a dense man, Jim. I don't know how you have made it very far in life with that mentality.

BLAME THE PERSON, NOT THE TOOL!!!

Jesus titty-fucking Christ man...that whack-job did it, not the gun! If he had a screwdriver in his hand when the argument started, he likely would have jabbed that in your friend's neck instead!

Your reasoning and mentality are the problem...not guns. Get over yourself and you'll be able to place blame squarely where it belongs...on the monsters that commit the act, not the tools they use to do it!

John,

Jim's point is a valid one, and you are hoisted on your own petard.

Guns make it too clean and easy to kill. If all the guy had to hand was a screwdriver, then Jim's friend would more than likely be alive now. Ditto a knife. It is a lot harder to look someone in the eyes whilst struggling to stab them than it is to pull a trigger from a distance.

You have to give ground on the fact that although the gun is an inanimate object, and although the person pulling the trigger IS the killer, it is the weapon that facilitates the death of someone, and with a gun it is SO much easier.

Graham.

 

[domtoni]

Points well taken by all. Question for all of you guys in the UK and on the left in the USA:

With 270 million guns in circulation, what guns would you take out of circulation?

 

[Nick]

John,

Jim's point is a valid one, and you are hoisted on your own petard.

Guns make it too clean and easy to kill. If all the guy had to hand was a screwdriver, then Jim's friend would more than likely be alive now. Ditto a knife. It is a lot harder to look someone in the eyes whilst struggling to stab them than it is to pull a trigger from a distance.

You have to give ground on the fact that although the gun is an inanimate object, and although the person pulling the trigger IS the killer, it is the weapon that facilitates the death of someone, and with a gun it is SO much easier.

Graham.

Graham absolutely right, and as this discussion is about the pros and cons of guns, that must surely be a con.

As I have said before if the middle aged thug who attacked me had a gun, ( I suspect it would be relatively easy for him to get a gun licence), instead of a metal bar I would quite possibly not be alive now.

The problem is even in the UK it is still too easy for people who should not have them to get a gun licence. If you want to carry a gun public or own a gun then you need to undergo the utmost scrutiny.

The impression I get from John, and I maybe wrong. is that he does not believe anyone else has the right to decide who can or cannot bear arms.

John you have claimed I have no common sense, which implies you must feel you do, you have proudly proclaimed your military background. So faced with an angry aggressive assailant meaning to do you harm, and with your common sense and military training in mind would you rather they had a screwdriver or a gun?

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

"The impression I get from John, and I maybe wrong. is that he does not believe anyone else has the right to decide who can or cannot bear arms."

In the US there is portion of the population that cannot bear arms lawfully, that's why we have federal checks prior to the purchase. Why is it that if liberals don't like something, it has to be outlawed for everyone?

 

[Chris P.]

In the US there is portion of the population that cannot bear arms lawfully, that's why we have federal checks prior to the purchase. Why is it that if liberals don't like something, it has to be outlawed for everyone?

Converse: Why is it that if conservatives like something, everyone else has to take part in it too? (Yes, I'm talking about religion. Conservative politicians cannot stop bringing it up and plenty of others try and paint non-religious people as bad and immoral. Kind of counter to what their religion is supposed to teach them by the way...)

 

[Jim Craik]

FUCK...you are a dense man, Jim. I don't know how you have made it very far in life with that mentality.

BLAME THE PERSON, NOT THE TOOL!!!

John, this person was momentarilly enraged (kind of like you), he reached into a drawer, grabed his gun and shot. My friend George was a big guy and in good shape. This little angry man could not have killed without a gun!

You get that!!!! With out a loaded gun right there this killing would not have happened.

People get very angery over little things (like you, right now, are a great example, step away from the gun!).

It was an angry person WITH A GUN that caused this death, no gun, no death.........that simple.

 

[Jim Craik]

FUCK...you are a dense man, Jim. I don't know how you have made it very far in life with that mentality.

Posted by John

John, I'd be happy to compare my place in life and mentality to you any time!

 

[Ron R.]

Converse: Why is it that if conservatives like something, everyone else has to take part in it too? (Yes, I'm talking about religion. Conservative politicians cannot stop bringing it up and plenty of others try and paint non-religious people as bad and immoral. Kind of counter to what their religion is supposed to teach them by the way...)

Chris,

A little common sense, OK? You presume that only "conservative" politicians raise the spectre of religion when they are up on their soapbox? Seriously?

And "Why is it that if conservatives like something, everyone else has to take part in it too?"

I'm sorry, but the libs are notorious for using laws to get their way. The founding fathers believed in limited government (as do real conservatives), and a "hands off" approach to life otherwise. Liberals want to prescribe what can be included in a "Happy Meal."

 

[Jeff Young]

You've drunk the coolaid that suggests there was only one side of the debate back at the time, and immediately after, the Constitution was drafted.

The right wing blogs are full of quotes from Madison and Jefferson, but conveniently omit the sharp (sometimes almost violent) disagreement between Madison and Jefferson (the Democractic-Republicans) on the one hand and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, John Marshall, etc. on the other side (the Federalists), who believed the country needed a far stronger central government than the Articles of Confederation provided, a central bank etc.

It's like half of our history was written away by the nutjobs on right wing radio and TV.

The Constitution, and the actions taken immediately after its passing up until 1820 or so, were a political compromise between these two factions.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff,

Its funny how the "Founding Fathers" are now portrayed. Then as now thing are always a compromise, none of them were fully happy with the result!

But now any discussion of their work that concervatives do not agree with their answere is "liberals hate the founding fathers".

 

[domtoni]

Ok guys, no one has addressed my question. How do you propose to take guns away from the owning public?

 

[Jeff Young]

It's Orwellian really. It's like Hannity/Beck/Limbaugh et. al. are trying to rewrite accepted history. That stuff with Woodrow Wilson as some sort of proto-commie-fascist? Wow.

But the really irritating stuff is just as you say - this idea that the founders were a bunch of folks who think like 21st century conservatives. Fuck me! They were revolutionaries!

And they were sharply divided. One side of that debate gets repeated to us over and over as being "the" intent of the founders, when in fact they held a variety of views on government's size and scope, and its relationship to the individual. Hell, Hamilton was at times almost a monarchist.

The Constitution was a result of compromise, but one thing it was ABSOLUTELY designed to do was to replace the weak Articles of Confederation (Limbaugh's "HIstory of America" seems to posit the Constitution as being passed immediately after the end of the Revolutionary War when in fact it was the direct product of the failure of the Articles to form a more "perfect union") with a stronger federal government. Limited? Yes. Some sort of benign office of defense and customs collection, with 3 employees? Uh, no.

Jeff,

Its funny how the "Founding Fathers" are now portrayed. Then as now thing are always a compromise, none of them were fully happy with the result!

But now any discussion of their work that concervatives do not agree with their answere is "liberals hate the founding fathers".

 

[Nick]

" Why is it that if liberals don't like something, it has to be outlawed for everyone?

Al,

I never said it had to be "outlawed for everyone", I said "The problem is even in the UK it is still too easy for people who should not have them to get a gun licence. If you want to carry a gun public or own a gun then you need to undergo the utmost scrutiny."

Surely it is worth making citizens who want to own or carry a gun, to undergo the utmost scrutiny in order to gain information that could possibly save innocent lives.

Hell it not like I'm advocating the use of torture to extract information to save British lives.

 

[Ron Earp]

Ok guys, no one has addressed my question. How do you propose to take guns away from the owning public?

Guns will never be eliminated from the general population. That isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons.

I’m an avid gun collector and used to shoot competitively before I got involved in racing. I’ve often pondered the following question – “Would I destroy my guns if the world would then be gun free?”. I’ve considered that concept in a number of different lights and I have to say, as much as I enjoy my firearms, a world without firearms is somewhat intriguing (and not because I'd feel safer walking down the street).

But alas, a fantasy. One core reason it won’t happen in the US, or any country in the world, is the Djinn is out of the bottle.

Firearms are relatively simple technology. Gunpowder is really easy to make (I’ve made some), bullets are easy to make (I’ve cast a bunch), and cartridge cases are very simple to fabricate. Basic firearms are simple to make as well. The most difficult component, in my opinion, in a modern firearm system is the primer but even those can be fabricated if you’ve a mind to do so. And more simplistic ignition systems still do the trick.

If you were to somehow magically eliminate firearms from planet Earth it’d be less than 24 hours before some basic firearms were back in the hands of those who wished to have one. Make it illegal to own firearms after the grand purge? Well, then only criminals would have guns and I’d have to count myself as one of them. I’d be out in the garage building a homemade repeater by daybreak.

If someone wants to possess a gun they will do so. Or a missile, bomb, or other any weapon that humans have developed. Heck, here is a video of a rocket of some type launched off the coast of California. Wonder who made it?

'Mystery Missile Launch' Leaves California Scratching Its Head : The Two-Way : NPR

 

[Jeff Young]

True. It's like the Star Trek episode where Capnn Smirk makes the cannon out of power and a bamboo tube.

"Outlawing" guns won't eliminate them. It may make them harder to get, like in Canada, the UK and Japan, but they won't ever go away. Peoples is people. Prohibiton didn't eliminate alcohol, making skunk weed illegal didn't eliminate it either. Fireworks are illegal in NC, everyone has them on the 4th.

People like their bangsticks. The trick is what is a reasonable level of regulation to make sure -- as much as possible and while considering teh rights of the good folks -- the good folks have them and the bad do not.

 

[Jim Craik]

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, that will make it easy to identify them! Very strong laws would stop most possession.

Sure people could make there own, but most can't/won't. The typical angry/drunk shooting that kills so many would most likely not happen.

 

[Chris P.]

Chris,

A little common sense, OK? You presume that only "conservative" politicians raise the spectre of religion when they are up on their soapbox? Seriously?

Yes, you're right, liberal politicians bring it up too, my point was that conservatives seem to do it more. It really seems to me that most liberals bring it up only to be on the "safe side" so that conservative hot heads can't use it against them. It's a real shame. I remember in the Kerry/Bush debates, Kerry made some mention of religion or attending church or something along those lines and it was painfully obvious that he was exaggerating for the sake of "comforting" all the religious people out there.

And you claim only liberals are notorious for wanting to write laws to get their way? Seriously? You think all the laws out there penned and passed by conservatives are neutral and for the common good? They wouldn't be labeled conservative then. What about the same sex marriage debates? (stems from religious beliefs.) What about stem cell research? (stems from religious beliefs.) What about abortion rights? (stems from religious beliefs.) There are plenty of conservatives out there who wouldn't think twice about putting laws into affect on these grounds.