GUN DEBATE

Originally Posted by Shin

If guns are illegal than your average burglar isn't going to have one.

How do you figure? And what exactly is your "average burglar?"

I understand that most of you kids outside the US live in near utopia since your gov'ts have disarmed you. But here, many of us can't fully rely on our law enforcement agencies to protect us from harm. So if citizens want to keep weapons in their homes as a "worst case scenario" safety precaution...why not? It be like not owning a fire extinguisher on the principle that you'll probably never need one. Regardless of personal preference, it should remain a personal preference.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Shin

What I'm suggesting is that the risks of someone getting unintentionally killed by a gun you keep loaded in your bedside cabinet outweigh the benefits of keeping a loaded firearm in your bedside cabinet in case some crazed maniac bursts into your house at such a time as you happen to be upstairs in reach of your gun.

Under the same argument one could argue that the convenience of the automobile does not outweigh the risk of accident that may be fatal. The issue is, "should citizens be trusted to keep dangerous tools in their homes?" Based on the SC decision, they figure citizens should have personal preference when it comes to the ownership of such tools. And, of course, with that ownership comes personal responsibility.

They lifted a ban...they didn't make gun ownership mandatory.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Pang... so based on some unreferenced hypothetical statistical data that you have yet to present, is it your argument that the legislature should abandon the idea that citizens just might be able to engage in safe practice with dangerous tools on the basis of idiot-proofing life for all the "nutty people" who are accident prone?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Shin

If that's genuinely your opinion, I assume you're against the international community trying to stop Iran building nuclear enrichment plants? Why shouldn't they be allowed to produce nuclear power when it's only the crazy people in power who'd want to make atomic bombs with the leftovers after all.

Again, the issue is one regarding the individual liberties of US citizens. Issues of state soverignty in relation to nuclear programs are probably better suited for another thread.

Originally Posted by Pang

You have misunderstood my argument, such as it is, rather thoroughly. The notion of engaging in "safe practice" with a tool designed to ventilate someone's liver is a bit amusing, though. Whom are we practicing on, exactly? The dog?

To clarify, by safe practice, I mean practicing in the same way that you'd practice safe driving habits, practice safe sex, or in this case gun safety.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Pang

The function of a gun is to put new windows in a structurally-sound person. It is not possible to use a gun in this fashion safely; by definition if the gun is used in this fashion someone has been hurt. There are other ways to use a gun, but this is the core use. If a gun was released that did everything a normal gun does except shoot bullets into people, no one would buy it.*

When people talk about "safe gun ownership" what they generally mean is preventing the item's core function from engaging, by keeping the weapon unloaded, locked up, et cetera. A safe gun owner wants to prevent people from getting shot, or to make the gun useless.

*with some exceptions vis-a-vis hunting, but do you think the gun lobby would accept a ban on everything but hunting rifles? Also, when I say "no one" this obviously excludes collectors, which are in a class of lunacy all their own.

The function of a gun is to fire a projectile. The target is reliant upon the user and their motivation. Why all the demonizing? As you said earlier, it's just an object. Gun safety is practiced not to prevent the core function from engaging, but to help insure control when the function is engaged and prevent accidents.

Some people keep pistols not only for personal protection, but also for competitive shooting and recreation, and as you mentioned, collecting. Clue me in on why this seems crazy.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

"Competitive shooting". Explain to me why you need anything more than a paint gun for this. Or, hell, a crossbow. Darts. A rubberband and paperclip. Spitwads. In the world of "gosh let's see which of us can point at something" there are many options that hardly ever blow off somebody's thumb.

As for collecting I don't see why "GUYS LOOK: I HAVE A LOT OF SOMETHING" isn't a little silly. When I was about 7, maybe 8, I collected baseball cards. And then I said to myself: "Self, these things are fucking worthless".

Ok, within competitive shooting participants use both rifles and pistols in a variety of calibers. Paint guns aren't anywhere near as accurate as real guns over long distances. And yes, they have competitive crossbow shooting and darts. But as you can imagine, it isn't quite the same. Your statement is about as silly as telling a formula 1 driver that he should stick to go-karts, tricycle races, or pony rides. You really should try going to a gun range if you have access. Not to march around all macho, but to give it a go for the sport and get some firsthand education on the subject instead of immediately writing it off because it involves scary weapons. You'll find that it's not quite as simple, or barbaric as you might think.

And just cause you decided that your baseball collection sucked, doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy collecting things (guns included).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

I don't need a gun to protect my person, why should anybody else because the ban creates a blanket of equality; of course you still have the black markets but that creates a lot less problems than legal supply.

I'd like to see some reference regarding violent crimes committed with registered weapons in comparison to those that are illegally obtained.

To add more fuel to the fire of this discussion. What do you guys think of Joe Horn?

FELIPE NO