[Shinrei]

QuickTidal, on 20 December 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Interesting. So those who want to ban guns should really be focusing on the previous interpretations of the amendment and lobbying STATES to do it.

Everyone always goes crying to the Fed....

I hate to use internet banality, but Obi's posts make perfect sense, and your posts seem like a lot of "butthurt"...but I want my guns, but I want my guns, but I want my guns...

All your examples of what these men actually thought of the 2nd only proves that during the time they lived in (the 18th century North America, most of it undiscovered wild lands), being armed made a little more sense historically.

They were essentially living in a frontier type civilization, where protecting one's self was very high on the list of needs simply because they didn't have hundreds of years of entrenched history, law and police to enforce those laws with the populace.

America is no longer a frontier like civilization. It has police, laws and an entrenched set of social mores. You don't live in the same type of town, city or house or even civilization that your 18th century counterpart did. America is not the Old West, or the 13 Colonies...it's actually SUPPOSED to be a global superpower...and a global super power shouldn't leave its ass entrenched in ideas from a past way of living that no longer REMOTELY applies to modern times.

I'll give you an example you can relate to Shin. Imagine, if in Japan where you reside the Shogunate never was abolished...there still was a shogun and the various prefectures were still ruled over by feudal vassal's of that Shogun. As such, his Samurai walk around modern Tokyo (or wherever you reside), with a Katana and a wakizashi at their hip. You, being a foreigner, MIGHT in some way offend them...and they'd do what to you? You're telling me that if that's what they feel should be their lawful right...then that's okay? Even though Japan proved that just over a mere 100 years they could abolish the use of swords in their daily lives, and proceed to make things SAFE...without them.

That comparison maybe works out by the results, but the swords at that time were not banned to make Japan "safe". If was more a power grab by the Meiji government to make sure the only real concentration of arms was in their hands, and to "modernize Japan" for the eyes of the Western powers by discarding an outmoded caste system.

Anyways, the whole founding fathers ideas and their life and times is not really the main argument I made.

I wonder if no one has addressed it because it is

1) Difficult to address because it is strong

or

2) Difficult to address because it is retarded

But SOMEONE should give it a go.

Here it is, again:

A lot of statistics have been thrown out on thread about guns and America being unsafe. Well, a lot of statistics can be thrown out to show that blacks commit more crimes in America. So, should the police be allowed to pull someone over for "driving while black" and assume that black people are some sort of criminal perpetrator because of their skin color? If the strength of your argument lies in statistics, then surely we should make our communities safer by guarding against black people.

Occasionally Islamic Extremists try to bomb buildings and planes. So we are justified in racially profiling and limiting rights of Muslims just in case they might be violent. Right?

Alcohol and alcohol related incidents kill more people than gun related incidents. Shall we try prohibition again? That shit is cheap, and it goes so well with many things, like food, sports, domestic violence, street violence and killer drunk driving sprees.

The occasional crazy uses guns to do something horrible. So we should revoke the rights of millions of law abiding citizens who own guns just to prevent this.

What do we allow our citizens to do? To what extent do we trust individuals to be more good than bad with something? Do we discriminate against law abiding folks because of a few incidents?

[Morgoth]

Some muslim extremists bomb buildings, which do not result in us banning muslim extremists, because that would be silly. We do however ban the posession of bombs.

Your analogy is pretty daft.

[Obdigore]

Millions of law abiding citizens are already unable to purchase explosives, working tanks or boats with munitions, or have in their possession any kind of enriched uranium, due to 'just a few incidents'.

Why should a m249 be any different?

Also, stop the slippery slope bullshit. Neither this upcoming bill nor anything else reasonable suggested a ban on firearms, especially handguns or rifles commonly used in hunting. In fact, in proposed bill currently has over 800 model exceptions.

[Silencer]

Minor tangent: Does nobody else think it would be FUCKING AWESOME if everyone walked around with swords still? I mean, c'mon! That would be so cool! (Potential for severe loss of limb and/or self-harm aside, naturally...I'm talking purely aesthetically here...)

Shinrei, on 21 December 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

*snip*

A lot of statistics have been thrown out on thread about guns and America being unsafe. Well, a lot of statistics can be thrown out to show that blacks commit more crimes in America. So, should the police be allowed to pull someone over for "driving while black" and assume that black people are some sort of criminal perpetrator because of their skin color? If the strength of your argument lies in statistics, then surely we should make our communities safer by guarding against black people.

Occasionally Islamic Extremists try to bomb buildings and planes. So we are justified in racially profiling and limiting rights of Muslims just in case they might be violent. Right?

Alcohol and alcohol related incidents kill more people than gun related incidents. Shall we try prohibition again? That shit is cheap, and it goes so well with many things, like food, sports, domestic violence, street violence and killer drunk driving sprees.

The occasional crazy uses guns to do something horrible. So we should revoke the rights of millions of law abiding citizens who own guns just to prevent this.

What do we allow our citizens to do? To what extent do we trust individuals to be more good than bad with something? Do we discriminate against law abiding folks because of a few incidents?

OK, let's put this in perspective here. You are 1) talking about discriminating against PEOPLE by assuming things about their PERSONALITY from their ethnic traits, in the "black people commit more crimes" section [which, btw, is not technically a reliable statistic; there are perhaps more black people who are caught/tried/convicted of crimes, that is not in and of itself proof that more black people are criminals per head of population], whereas we are talking about controlling the spread of weapons. The same as we do with, oh yeah, alcohol (age limits, can't sell to intoxicated people, can't drink and drive, etc), drugs (illicit narcotics, pharmaceutical-issued doses, etc), and so on and so forth. This is a different category than racial discrimination, as it doesn't discriminate against different sets of people at all - one law for all, the same as alcohol/drugs/driving/etc.
2) We are talking about America's statistics versus the rest of the civilized world's statistics as being a MASSIVE, GLARING OUTLIER. One which is very easy to spot the distinction between the outlier and the rest of the sample group. We're talking about statistics so solid, they actually can be taken with more than a grain of salt.

I personally don't get smashed and then go and drive. I don't pre-load and then go to bars and so forth. In general I'm extremely well-controlled on the drinking front. And yet do I get up in arms that I couldn't buy alcohol until I was 18? Do I fight against the laws that discriminate against my ability to drive while mildly intoxicated just because a "few" people get drunk and crash? No.

But really, the key point here is that (aside from the fact that we DO, in fact, have laws in place to limit consumption of alcohol and that American law enforcement in general DOES in fact practice racial profiling) nobody objects to alcohol blood level limits for drivers, and the average citizen's right to consume alcohol doesn't, as far as I'm aware, exist. And nor does it in the rest of the world. And America doesn't seem to have a gigantic difference to the rest of the world in terms of drink-driving accidents. But America does protect the average citizen's "right to bear arms", and America does have a STAGGERINGLY large difference compared to the rest of the world in terms of massacres, as well as more "mundane" gun crime. And yet the average American is more concerned about fighting off the big bad government tyranny (that is only kept at bay by the threat of citizens with guns) than about putting forward even simple, easy, logical, world-wide-endorsed, standards of gun control in order to help prevent the "few" massacres you guys do have. It actually saddens me that you can argue that the "average citizens" right to bear arms is more important than the social responsibility - note, not the government's responsibility, they are merely the people expected to enact the controls that facilitate meeting this responsibility - but the social responsibility, inspired by sheer common sense and compassion, to preserve life wherever possible using reasonable means.
What I'm saying is; your precious right to bear arms - a right no reasonable country in the rest of the world thinks they need, or need to enshrine in entrenched, superior law - is apparently worth more than the lives of twenty children. Worth more than the lives of MILLIONS of US citizens who, over the years, have been shot in massacres, killed by stray bullets from gang shootouts, from daddy leaving the gun lying around the house, from daddy deciding that he didn't LIKE you crying any more, so on and so forth. No other reasonable country has the quantity of stories like those that America does. And none of them have had such a problem with dictators that they've ever felt the need to raise up a "right to bear arms", either.

This is one right. A right that the rest of the world doesn't seem to need. It's not comparable to prohibition, nor is it comparable to the right to life or the right to freedom of speech (because apparently it stand above those, in that it cannot have any reasonable limitations imposed upon it with regards to the preservation of other people's rights), and it's not comparable to any sort of slippery slope situation you can concoct to justify the undermining of other rights. Why? Because it is so unique in the world; and because the admixture of that right and what appears to be the general thought process of the American citizenry leads to demonstrably higher rates of, and worse instances of, murder all over the bloody place. It's a right that can be reasonably controlled without actually hurting anyone, in order to save lives. It's really a right that you don't need, and would be better off without. So demonstrates the rest of the fucking world.

Is that statistical enough for you? The rest of the fucking world. (*civilised, developed world, in any case. Meh)

[Shinrei]

Morgoth, I didn't say a "ban on muslims", I was merely saying restricting their rights, something I would argue is ALREADY happening. Don't tell me more middle eastern looking people don't get the special handjob at the airport than Joe McVanillaface.


Obdi, nice bullshit strawman argument - I'm not making a slippery slope argument at all but I guess you would like to say it is because it's easier to dismiss then.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 21 December 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Obdi, nice bullshit strawman argument - I'm not making a slippery slope argument at all but I guess you would like to say it is because it's easier to dismiss then.

You said that the new bill (which bans magazines larger than 12 and a lot of different types of newer firearms, that also has exceptions for over 800 models currently in use in the US) is somehow 'revoking the rights of citizens to prevent this'.

Do you honestly think that armed teachers are the answer (which has been bandied about) or that say during the Aurora Massacre it would have been better if everyone was armed after two smoke grenades and bullets started flying? Are you fucking kidding me?

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 21 December 2012 - 12:36 PM

[worry]

I think nobody's arguing with you a) because those analogies (except to some small degree the prohibition one) aren't very good and b} because nobody is arguing for a blanket ban on guns (though HD came closest I guess), so it seems like you're arguing a non-existent opponent. Making gun control legislation smarter doesn't violate anybody's rights.

Also, it's hard to tell if your argument is that using statistics is unwise because they're inaccurate (and they certainly can be), or because individual freedoms and civil rights trump probability. I say this because if it's the latter and not the former, you might just be making some assumptions...statistical analysis from trustworthy sources does not in any way show that black Americans commit more crimes, or even are arrested for more crimes, than anybody else. White people have more than double the arrests: http://www2.fbi.gov/...a/table_43.html
You might be mispeaking, if you just mean that a disproportionate number of black people are incarcerated compared to their share of the total US population...but then again, there are a whole host of reasons that's true, and incarceration rates to no significant degree suggest how many actual crimes are being committed or especially by whom.

The bomb analogy is inapt because it's the people that have the civil rights, not the bombs or the guns. And by the way, you can't bear either on an airplane. But in all situations explosives are well-regulated, which is why you need a federal explosives license to own dynamite, or why localities can ban fireworks. Is that a line-crossing curtailment of your civil rights? I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Do you expect gun control laws to start somehow causing "gun-owner profiling"? Because right now, if you're pulled over and you're bearing a gun, you're going to get all kinds of checked anyway...what type it is, what kind of ammo you have, where the gun was, where that ammo was (gun loaded?), and more. You might very well be arrested if one of any number of factors don't line up. Because that's breaking the law. If your case is that assault rifle owners being treated differently than hunting rifle owners is discrimination, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Lastly, as I said above, the 2nd Amendment is not restricted to citizens. It's a protection afforded any and all people under US jurisdiction. That is, except felons. And the mentally ill (even if they are citizens with clear criminal records). Or often enough, people who don't have a permit to own a firearm. Or, as it happens, the vast majority of non-citizens because states have a variety of exceptions on issuing permits to them. And in many states, even if none of these things apply to you and you can own a firearm, it's still illegal for you to carry the firearm in your car, or hidden on your person. Various types of ammo have been outlawed, including hollow tip "cop killer" bullets (also some states have outlawed bullet proof vests too -- an aside, but I mean, it's a self defense product you're not allowed to own by law). Which of these lines -- seemingly in opposition to the people's right to bear arms interpretation of the 2nd -- are you comfortable crossing?

Edit: I hate that smiley that comes from b + )

This post has been edited by worrywort: 21 December 2012 - 12:51 PM

[worry]

Hey, it looks like I took a long time writing that. Hooray!

[Shinrei]

Quote

which, btw, is not technically a reliable statistic; there are perhaps more black people who are caught/tried/convicted of crimes, that is not in and of itself proof that more black people are criminals per head of population]

Hey, that' ANOTHER ISSUE. You're not allowed to talk about ANOTHER ISSUE when the banning of something is obviously the issue. NOT ANYTHING ELSE.

Quote

The same as we do with, oh yeah, alcohol (age limits, can't sell to intoxicated people, can't drink and drive, etc), drugs (illicit narcotics, pharmaceutical-issued doses, etc), and so on and so forth.

Last I checked, there are limitations about buying guns. It's not a damn free for all with guns being sold to 10 year olds and pistols being sold to walk-ins without a waiting period or a background check.

Quote

This is a different category than racial discrimination, as it doesn't discriminate against different sets of people at all - one law for all, the same as alcohol/drugs/driving/etc.

So when we discriminate against people of all colors for something they do, rather than a single color, it's all kosher?

Quote

2) We are talking about America's statistics versus the rest of the civilized world's statistics as being a MASSIVE, GLARING OUTLIER. One which is very easy to spot the distinction between the outlier and the rest of the sample group. We're talking about statistics so solid, they actually can be taken with more than a grain of salt.

I don't deny that the US has a higher gun death statistic.

Quote

I personally don't get smashed and then go and drive. I don't pre-load and then go to bars and so forth. In general I'm extremely well-controlled on the drinking front. And yet do I get up in arms that I couldn't buy alcohol until I was 18? Do I fight against the laws that discriminate against my ability to drive while mildly intoxicated just because a "few" people get drunk and crash? No.

That's great. Most people are the same as you I think. But guess what, most people don't use guns to shoot up schools, either. So why do people "get up in arms" (pun intended?) about gun laws?

Quote

aside from the fact that we DO, in fact, have laws in place to limit consumption of alcohol and that American law enforcement in general DOES in fact practice racial profiling

We have laws in place that limit the type of guns sold and to whom they are sold. And I think racial profiling is wrong, which is why I brought it up.

Quote

nobody objects to alcohol blood level limits for drivers, and the average citizen's right to consume alcohol doesn't, as far as I'm aware, exist. And nor does it in the rest of the world.

Why not? Seriously, why not? It hits all the right buttons in terms of making people violent, causing harm to women and children and innocents on the street or in their cars. Why not? Because YOU want to have alcohol, and YOU dont want alcohol to be taken away. (I mean collective you, not you specifically Silencer). But just because YOU don't have a use, need or want for a gun, doesn't mean that others shouldn't have one either. There are all kinds of people out there who want to say "Such and such shouldn't be allowed." And they can even come up with good reasons most of the time. But that doesn't mean whatever it is should be taken away.

And America vs. other countries Alcohol consumption is irrelevant. That alcohol kills more Americans than guns, is relevant. And I'm sure the ratio would be similar in other countries if other countries had similar gun laws as the US.

Quote

It actually saddens me that you can argue that the "average citizens" right to bear arms is more important than the social responsibility inspired by sheer common sense and compassion, to preserve life wherever possible using reasonable means.

I believe it my social responsibility to protect the rights of individuals. Because with me, I would feel I was a hypocrite if I fought to ban guns and didn't ALSO fight to ban alcohol, fast food and all the other things that might save MANY MORE lives.

Murder, assault etc are all illegal, and we shoudl do whatever we can to prevent these CRIMES. Owning a gun doesn't lead to criminal behavior for millions of people.

Quote

. Why? Because it is so unique in the world; and because the admixture of that right and what appears to be the general thought process of the American citizenry leads to demonstrably higher rates of, and worse instances of, murder all over the bloody place. It's a right that can be reasonably controlled without actually hurting anyone, in order to save lives. It's really a right that you don't need, and would be better off without. So demonstrates the rest of the fucking world.

You may abhor this, but I support greater rights for individuals even if it sometimes means more deaths. I'm not one of those people who sugercoats it with "GUNS PREVENT DEATHS" since the statistics prove that to be false.

However, what I am saying is if a country banned alcohol successfully and said to everyone else LOOK YOU UNCIVILIZED BOOBS AT OUR LOW ALCOHOL DEATH RATES I would say "good for you" and grab a beer. That's not a slippery slope argument at all, it just points out that yeah, if you successfully ban something less people will die from it. I'm not an idiot, of course I see this is the case. But like I said earlier, I think a measurement of a society is what it actually allows its citizens to have/do. Individual rights vs. the nanny state. I don't always, but usually I do side with the individual.

An example. I think adult seatbelt laws are bullshit, and are just another way for the government to collect money from tickets. If you're dumb enough not to wear one, that's your business. However, I agree with laws that require child seats/restraints in cars and support heavy fines on people who just let their kid rumble around in car.

If gun death was rampant in the US (and I would argue that it isn't, it only appears that way from the high profile nature of it in the media and comparison with other nations, which is just "small vs infintisimaly small") I might change my tune. Alcohol death is much more rampant, yet all my liberal friends discuss banning guns over their drinks. Where is the outrage over all of the children beaten to death by their drunk parent? Or rather, where is all the rage that should be directed at alcohol over the children beaten to death by their drunk parent?

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 21 December 2012 - 01:08 PM

[Shinrei]

worrywort, on 21 December 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

I think nobody's arguing with you a) because those analogies (except to some small degree the prohibition one) aren't very good and b} because nobody is arguing for a blanket ban on guns (though HD came closest I guess), so it seems like you're arguing a non-existent opponent. Making gun control legislation smarter doesn't violate anybody's rights.

I'll get to the rest of your post once I read it, but I want to respond to this right away.

I agree absolutely that gun control legistlation can be smarter and more effective without violating anyone's rights.

But are you reading the thread? My non-existent opponents like Silencer and QT sound like they're right there with HD and think all guns should be gone and the 2nd amendment vaporized.

[Shinrei]

worrywort, on 21 December 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

The bomb analogy is inapt because it's the people that have the civil rights, not the bombs or the guns. And by the way, you can't bear either on an airplane. But in all situations explosives are well-regulated, which is why you need a federal explosives license to own dynamite, or why localities can ban fireworks. Is that a line-crossing curtailment of your civil rights? I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Do you expect gun control laws to start somehow causing "gun-owner profiling"? Because right now, if you're pulled over and you're bearing a gun, you're going to get all kinds of checked anyway...what type it is, what kind of ammo you have, where the gun was, where that ammo was (gun loaded?), and more. You might very well be arrested if one of any number of factors don't line up. Because that's breaking the law. If your case is that assault rifle owners being treated differently than hunting rifle owners is discrimination, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Hey, I don't really want to get into a discussion about the efficacy of statistics, at least not right now.

As for my analogies in general - what I'm getting at is taking away the rights of people based on something that has happened.

School shooting - revoke the right to bear arms.

Plane bombing - revoke the right of a certain racial profile to board a plane without invasive anal surgery.

Drunk Driving - revoke the 'privilege' of being able to drink alcohol.

I'm not really trying to be deeper than that.

[Shinrei]

Obdigore, on 21 December 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Shinrei, on 21 December 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Obdi, nice bullshit strawman argument - I'm not making a slippery slope argument at all but I guess you would like to say it is because it's easier to dismiss then.

You said that the new bill (which bans magazines larger than 12 and a lot of different types of newer firearms, that also has exceptions for over 800 models currently in use in the US) is somehow 'revoking the rights of citizens to prevent this'.

Do you honestly think that armed teachers are the answer (which has been bandied about) or that say during the Aurora Massacre it would have been better if everyone was armed after two smoke grenades and bullets started flying? Are you fucking kidding me?

I don't remember ever addressing my opinion as to any specific bill at all. If you're referring to my " " over Scalia, that was tongue in cheek.

I don't know about arming teachers (certainly arming ALL teachers would be ridiculous). I like the school marshal idea better. Although, if teachers were armed maybe there would be greater hesitancy to take away teacher's collective bargaining rights.

[Silencer]

Shinrei, on 21 December 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

worrywort, on 21 December 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

I think nobody's arguing with you a) because those analogies (except to some small degree the prohibition one) aren't very good and b} because nobody is arguing for a blanket ban on guns (though HD came closest I guess), so it seems like you're arguing a non-existent opponent. Making gun control legislation smarter doesn't violate anybody's rights.

I'll get to the rest of your post once I read it, but I want to respond to this right away.

I agree absolutely that gun control legistlation can be smarter and more effective without violating anyone's rights.

But are you reading the thread? My non-existent opponents like Silencer and QT sound like they're right there with HD and think all guns should be gone and the 2nd amendment vaporized.

Go back, read the thread. I suggest heartily that the 2nd is abolished - it's stupid. However I never really advocated for banning guns. I suggest that America adopt similar categories and restrictions as we have in NZ and Australia. Which it seems you guys don't have, given people keep showing up with Beta-C mags and AK-47's all over the place.

Myself, I'd like to own a gun. I actually can't afford one or be bothered with the police background checks, though. That being said I think it's clear America has a problem with gun crime. And if you think people don't get outraged over child abuse and alcohol inducing accidents, but get outraged over gun crime (it may have something to do with TWENTY DEAD CHILDREN, which doesn't often happen in one go by one person from alcohol, thank you very much) then perhaps you need to peruse the news of a country who doesn't have much gun crime at all (like New Zealand), but has a real bee in its bonnet over smoking/alcohol/child abuse? Because believe me, we ARE looking at tackling issues like drink driving more harshly.
Then again, we don't have school massacres to sidetrack us. >.>

As far as alochol killing more people than guns goes, though, I really do think it comes down to current level of control, versus other utility versus scale. In that sense drink driving and stuff? The problem isn't legislation, it's enforcement. You also have to consider that prohibition of alcohol has been tried, and it didn't work. Tighter gun laws haven't been tried, and will take forever to show results due to the sheer mountain of guns already in circulation - thanks in no small part to that idiotic Amendment, btw. You also have to consider that alcohol in reasonable quantities (or even unreasonable quantities in a safe environment/with supervision) is a legitimate fun-bringing activity for many people. Just like shooting guns at targets in a range. Of course, you have laws that pretty much restrict consumption of alcohol to "in a safe environment under supervision", don't you? Whereas with guns, you don't have *enough* laws to prevent someone owning something truly ridiculous like Obdi's much-used M249 machinegun, or even an M4 with Beta-C mags. Which are not in any way necessary for ANYTHING other than massacring people or laying down suppressing fire in a war zone.
And finally, there is the difference between "man driving drunk kills four pedestrians" and "man with gun shoots twenty kids and eight adults" - which, btw, could EASILY have been worse. Whereas unless the drunk guy was driving a school bus, there are few ways he could have reached those dizzy heights of infamy. The point is, if he DID manage to kill twenty kids while driving a school bus drunk, we can say that just about every possible (reasonable) means of preventing that tragedy have been taken. We can't say that with the current gun laws in the States. Not when people have a right to bear arms enshrined in law, and access to ludicrously unnecessary types of "arms", apparently far too easy to obtain to boot.

[Shinrei]

Well, I think you are underestimating what gun laws exist in the US. These school shootings have not been done with automatic weapons and doesn't an AK have a full auto function? To be honest, I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to firearms - I've been to a range twice, and only fired a .22 target pistol and something else that was bigger, but I don't remember what it was.

But there ARE laws and restrictions, just not as many. I hope I've made it clear that I'm not against legislation to make gun ownership safer. I'm just against outright banning. And if some of you aren't arguing for full banning, then I'm sorry. Maybe it's spillover from facebook, where so many people seem to be doing just that.

[QuickTidal]

I do think the 2nd needs to be vaporized. Like Silencer, heartily I believe that.

There's no need for it, when the rest of the free world gets along quite FREELY without such a stupid thing...and has lower gun crime because of it.

There's NO other argument to be made here Shin. It's NOT needed, and causes more crime with...than without.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 21 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

[Shinrei]

No. My point is consistent. Yes, I'll argue it from different angles, but the stated opinion is the same. If I had to give an assessment of your posting in reply to your assessment of mine, I would say your view comes from a person who has a personal disgust of guns and who has had limited contact with any sort of gun culture. This is evidenced by your characterization that guns are only for "death". You have no personal use for guns, and cannot fathom how anyone else would.

I am not party to real gun culture either not coming from a gun family, but here are a few non-death uses I can rattle off the top of my head. Guns are for sports such as target shooting, both stationary and moving (skeets). Shooting sports are a part of the Olympics for instance. Guns, given the many kinds as well as historical value for old ones are also for collecting. Why should gun collecting be any different than sword collecting (swords also being only good for death, some would argue). Buying, selling, trading, and showing them off to other enthusiasts. Collecting and sports, these are both ordinary entertainment pastimes involving guns that have nothing to do with killing anything. Furthermore guns are used by historical re-enactors (sp?). They are fired by veterans to salute or commemorate something. I even played a "Shotgun" style start golf tournament once, where they club pro actually came out and shot a shotgun in the air to announce the start of play. Nobody died.

Just like drinking alcohol for most people is an ordinary pastime for entertainment purposes. (Wound cleaning alcohol isn't the same thing, and if you argue it's good for easing the sick, then we should just leave it only in the hands of medics just like you argue we should leave the guns in the hands of the military). For many, guns are an ordinary pastime for entertainment purposes.

[Shinrei]

Wow, you deleted your entire post that I was replying to.

[Shinrei]

QuickTidal, on 21 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

I do think the 2nd needs to be vaporized. Like Silencer, heartily I believe that.

There's no need for it, when the rest of the free world gets along quite FREELY without such a stupid thing...and has lower gun crime because of it.

There's NO other argument to be made here Shin. It's NOT needed, and causes more crime with...than without.

That is close-minded nonsense and you know it. I get that anti-gun people can be very passionately anti-gun. But the opposite is also true.

I'm a weirdo who couldn't care less about guns, but will still defend the rights of people to possess them simply because I believe that a vast majority of a very large and very thriving gun culture in the US shows that they are not raining death on each other left and right.

[D'rek]

Shinrei, on 21 December 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

I even played a "Shotgun" style start golf tournament once, where they club pro actually came out and shot a shotgun in the air to announce the start of play. Nobody died.

That seems kinda reckless. What if those bullets came down a mile away and hit someone?

[QuickTidal]

Shinrei, on 21 December 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Wow, you deleted your entire post that I was replying to.

Yeah sorry...I was re-reading it and decided I'd already said those things earlier in the thread enough...and you didn't need to hear me wailing them at you again.

I'm trying to not get dander up, but discuss, so I felt I wasn't helping things.