Guns and their uses...

[bumcheekcity]

Just to all those people who don't like gun control and who feel the need to have a gun with them for 'protection' I ask you this.

Name one practical useage for a gun, except for to kill or cause pain.

I know there is a gun control thread going on at the moment, but I didn't want to post there, because there was debate going on.

[stafffighter]

Guns are used to kill, salt shakers are used to dispence salt. Misuse and overuse can happen with either. And thanks for recognizing my topic.

[Commander-K25]

I think they're pretty much intended to kill.

What else would they be? Paperweights, perhaps?

[FUNKbrs]

well, hunting (yeah technically killing, shut up), but more closely, PLINKING! I don't know if you guys have ever gone target shooting, but it's loads of fun, and it doesnt actually kill anything. Also, they're collectible, and have historic value. they are symbols of independence and self sufficiency. Isn't that good enough?

[Explodapop]

Scaring is another use... I'd be dead scared if anyone shot at me, but intended to miss, as much if the person intended to hit.

[FreidanX]

You could entertain people by catching bullets fired at you with your teeth...

[Slizor]

There's a simple way to look at guns. This is it.

A gun has one use, it fires. It is the same as a hammer, which hammers. Now while a hammer is used correctly (ie what it was designed for) then it will hammer a nail or something. But what was a gun designed for? Target shooting? No, it was designed as a weapon, a thing to kill people with. Clearly, it would not be misusing a gun then, if you shot someone with it. It is what the gun was intended for.

It is therefore obvious that, in a society which does not promote or condone the shooting of other people, guns should be banned.

[Explodapop]

At 7/20/03 06:39 PM, Slizor wrote: It is therefore obvious that, in a society which does not promote or condone the shooting of other people, guns should be banned.

In that case, yeay for Norway! The regualar police do not have guns! Isent't that just great!</sarcasm>

[karasz]

im not a gun fan, but dont think they should be banned...

i distrust the US government WAY too much to have the population be unarmed... (call me crazy but an unarmed populous can easily be taken over)

[FUNKbrs]

There's nothing quite like a pistol to make that fashion statement "Hey, don't fuck with me!".

If everyone had a pistol, then people wouldn't just willy nilly go about robbing houses and mugging people.

Would YOU rob someone if you knew there was a 50\50 chance they would blow your fucking head off?

[RoboTripper]

At 7/20/03 06:39 PM, Slizor wrote: There's a simple way to look at guns. This is it.

A gun has one use, it fires. It is the same as a hammer, which hammers. Now while a hammer is used correctly (ie what it was designed for) then it will hammer a nail or something. But what was a gun designed for? Target shooting? No, it was designed as a weapon, a thing to kill people with. Clearly, it would not be misusing a gun then, if you shot someone with it. It is what the gun was intended for.

It is therefore obvious that, in a society which does not promote or condone the shooting of other people, guns should be banned.

It is true that the purpose of a gun is to kill. However, I disagree that society does not condone shooting other people. There are plenty of instances where shooting another person is perfectly acceptable. For instance: A police officer shooting a dangerous criminal; a homeowner shooting an dangerous intruder; a soldier shooting an enemy.

Also, you imply that guns are designed to only kill people. Many guns are made with the purpose of killing animals and people still use hunting for subsistence purposes.

[dudeitsallama]

There are several good reasons to have a gun. It can be used for self defense. Policemen need guns to deal with criminals. I can even believe that there are people in the US that need to hunt for food. What I don't believe is that we need guns to protect us from the government if it ever becomes evil.

I know that that was the purpose of that specific amendment when it was written by our founding fathers, but we have to remember that it was written in the day that people used musket, rifles, and pistols, that had to be reloaded after every shot. And, according to The Patriot, which is an absolute source of historical truth, a small army could be killed with three rifles and a hatchet. Today, the government has missles that it can fire in through your front door and right up your ass. It's got tanks and stealth bombers. One soldier with full body armor and a minigun can take out an entire city. So, while your 9mm might impress Larry, who decided to climb in through your window in the middle of the night to steal your tv, it won't help you if the military decides to cover your house with napalm.

[DrxFeelgood]

At 7/20/03 04:13 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: well, hunting (yeah technically killing, shut up), but more closely, PLINKING! I don't know if you guys have ever gone target shooting, but it's loads of fun, and it doesnt actually kill anything. Also, they're collectible, and have historic value. they are symbols of independence and self sufficiency. Isn't that good enough?

Thank you very much! Me, being an avid hunter, and growing uo in Michigan, require firearms in life. Hunting is one of the greatest things to do in life. Eating fresh venison is one of the greatest things too. Look, no one understands anything about firearms, but I DO, so I'm gonna enjoy it while I can. I suggest you all who don't agree with them should try it out, you may like it.

At 7/20/03 04:02 PM, stafffighter wrote: Misuse and overuse can happen with either.

How do you overuse a gun? By shooting one's fingers off after he/she has been shot in the head 5 times?

At 7/20/03 09:03 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
If everyone had a pistol, then people wouldn't just willy nilly go about robbing houses and mugging people.

But...what do robbers rob people with?
(statistically speaking, EVERYONE in America owns a gun. The truth is some people don't own a gun such as babies and the metally hndicapped but there are individuals that feel the need to protect their gun collection with guns.)

Would YOU rob someone if you knew there was a 50\50 chance they would blow your fucking head off?

Only if I blew his fucking head off first.

[THE-HULKSTER]

If you ban guns, Criminals will still get their hands on them from the black market.
All you could accomplish by banning firearms is to take away legal, registered firearms from non-criminal citizens.

[BWS]

Look, guns are weapons, but so are knifes...should we ban them as well. Oh yes, they have other purposes such as the ones previously mentioned. Anyways heres a few reasons for all you gun hatin liberals:
1) Its a form of checks and balance between civilins and government.
2) If someone breaks into my house, do you really think the police will get there quick enough?
3) Almost anything can be misused if put into the wrong hands; why should citizens be punished for the actions of criminals?
4) Take 'em away...see who has them and who will get them; the ones who misuse them will find them if they wish to do so.
5) Read the Bill of Rights (US); they didnt include that just for the hell of it...there is an underlying purpose.

Look at how many die because of guns each year in japan and in the U.S. and tell me that having restrctive gun laws will only take Johnny Lawful's gun away and criminals will still be able to shoot pople like they did before.

Timothy McVeigh was a law-abiding citizen with all the guns he wanted until he blew up Murrah Federal Building, killing hundreds of men, women and children (there was a babysitting centre on the first floor.

His reason for blowing up that building in Oklahoma?

He claims that when Congress banned certain assault weapons, "I snapped." McVeigh says that, "What the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge was dirty and I gave dirty back to them at Oklahoma City."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/05/08_poster.html

[BWS]

At 7/21/03 02:15 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Look at how many die because of guns each year in japan and in the U.S. and tell me that having restrctive gun laws will only take Johnny Lawful's gun away and criminals will still be able to shoot pople like they did before.

Think about it for a second. It would take them away from people; we agree on that. Criminals would get them; here is where we disagree. You think that the criminals wouldnt still get them? They sure as hell would, and if you think otherwise, I really would wonder why. Civilians arent the ones going and killing people. Of course people snap and do crazy shit, but taking them away from everyone is a lame solution.

When did anyone say that stricter gun laws would take the guns away from those who deserve to own one? Good god, those laws are supposed to make the worlda safer place, not leave you defenseless against the imaginary threat of the burglar in your house.

[BWS]

At 7/21/03 02:37 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: When did anyone say that stricter gun laws would take the guns away from those who deserve to own one? Good god, those laws are supposed to make the worlda safer place, not leave you defenseless against the imaginary threat of the burglar in your house.

Im talking about what might happen if owning a gun was made illegal; maybe I should have clarified that. If that were to happen, what I said becomes a very realistic future. It may sound good in theory that it will make the world a safer place, but it wont. The difference would be that criminals use them more often because they know that the other person is less likely to be able to shoot back. And as far as self defense at home; a burglar isnt an imaginary threat.

[JMHX]

At 7/20/03 06:44 PM, -PZY- wrote:

At 7/20/03 06:39 PM, Slizor wrote: It is therefore obvious that, in a society which does not promote or condone the shooting of other people, guns should be banned.

In that case, yeay for Norway! The regualar police do not have guns! Isent't that just great!</sarcasm>

Well, if you can think of a beneficial use for a gun by the normal person. Norway was rated a better place to live than the United States, and also had a lower crime rate.

[Slizor]

I can't be bothered to respond to each cookiecutter reply so I'll do a little research to prove you guys wrong (it's such a novel concept!)

I must first point out the idea of a life or death burglary situation. The idea that "the cops won't show up fast enough". It's bullshit, when someone wants to burgale you, they'll do just that, not try and kill you. However, when you start waving a gun around then the situation gets far far worse.

I'll also dispel the idea of it being a check on the Government. The Government controls the army, the army is professionally trained to kill and far far better equiped.

Bah, stupid Americocentric internet. All it has is saying things like "UK gun crime rate goes up by 35% after handgun ban". What it fails to mention (for example) is that that 35% is of a much smaller number than in America. For example the UK had 68 gun murders in 2001. The US had 11,127 gun murders.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/21/03 02:02 AM, BWS wrote: Look, guns are weapons, but so are knifes...should we ban them as well. Oh yes, they have other purposes such as the ones previously mentioned. Anyways heres a few reasons for all you gun hatin liberals:

Other purposes? I will check again, but the only things that came out of that were to hunt (killing) and shooting clay pigeons, which I don't think is a very practical use.

If you want to use a gun for clay pigeon shooting then the clubs should carry the guns, under lock and key and check them out when people take them, and check them back in when they are returned.

1) Its a form of checks and balance between civilins and government.

I don't quite understand you here. Do you mean the civilians will check the government? Balance? I'm sorry, I don't see why having a gun balances the relation between me and Tony Blair.

2) If someone breaks into my house, do you really think the police will get there quick enough?

Oh of course! To shoot people, or threaten people. What a nice useage!

3) Almost anything can be misused if put into the wrong hands; why should citizens be punished for the actions of criminals?

It is correct that anything can be misused, and it is probably possible to kill a man with a floppy disk, however EVERY other weapon (that is portable) has another use. Knives are used for cooking, etc.

4) Take 'em away...see who has them and who will get them; the ones who misuse them will find them if they wish to do so.

Fine. Let them get it off the Black Market. I'm a realist. I know no-one can stop the Black Market. Then give them 8 years in prison for gun possession. However, it shouldn't depend on anything. If you are caught with a gun, or have a guni your house knowledgeably, you get 8 years behind bars. You are either carrying a gun or you aren't.

5) Read the Bill of Rights (US); they didnt include that just for the hell of it...there is an underlying purpose.

I live in the UK, so that doesn't apply. However, I don't live my life according to what laws say. I don't murder because it is immoral. I smoke weed occasionally because I do not think it is immoral.

If the Bill of Rights was changed tomorrow to add a new Clause saying: "Murder and torture of babies is alright, as long as it is done with a blade no longer than 12"" Would that make torturing babies alright?

[D2Kvirus]

Home protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face.

I can quote The Simpsons too, y'know...

[bumcheekcity]

Thats not off the Simpsons, thats of an Izzard sketch.

[Explodapop]

At 7/21/03 08:06 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

In that case, yeay for Norway! The regualar police do not have guns! Isent't that just great!</sarcasm>

Well, if you can think of a beneficial use for a gun by the normal person. Norway was rated a better place to live than the United States, and also had a lower crime rate.

Yes, Norway was rated the best country to live in year 2002 i think. And the reason for the low crime rate is that the regular Norwegian is a very kind and honest (althouhg not very smart) person. That is true, crime amongst the "real" Norwegians are almost zero. Not trying to be any kind of rasistic here, but the immigrants to Norway does the most crime.

And it is not hard to get a lower crime rate than USA, with or without guns. But the crime rate in Norway grows, but in USA it goes down.

[THE-HULKSTER]

Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.

It dosen't matter what tools they have at their disposal. If a murder wants to kill you, he will. With or without guns. Having legal firearms acts as a deterrent. Just like the US having Wepons of Mass destruction as a deterrent to other nations. They know if they nuke us, they are going to get nuked back.
It's the same way with a crminal. They know if they try to rop/rape/murder us, they might get shot for it.
Personally, I think MORE people should have guns.

[Explodapop]

At 7/21/03 02:20 PM, THE_HULKSTER wrote: Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.

It dosen't matter what tools they have at their disposal. If a murder wants to kill you, he will. With or without guns. Having legal firearms acts as a deterrent. Just like the US having Wepons of Mass destruction as a deterrent to other nations. They know if they nuke us, they are going to get nuked back.
It's the same way with a crminal. They know if they try to rop/rape/murder us, they might get shot for it.
Personally, I think MORE people should have guns.

I don't think more ppl should have guns, since it is an easy way to commit crime etc.
But ppl kill. Not guns. That is very correct. If my victim is unexpecting, I can kill it with a stone if I wanna.
And wouldn't the raper/robber/murderer have a gun too, already pointing it a the victim? I don't see how that would support the innocent.