"But guns were MADE for killing"


PDA






Drjones
December 28, 2002, 01:18 AM
I am having a hard time rebutting this.

I can't quantify my thoughts.

Help!

If you enjoyed reading about ""But guns were MADE for killing"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tamara
December 28, 2002, 01:23 AM
"There's nothing wrong with killing, so long as the right people get killed." -Inspector Callahan


It would be more accurate to say that guns were invented for killing. Many are still made for killing today, but can be used for other purposes. Some guns today, on the other hand, were made for punching holes in paper or busting clay pigeons. The fact that they could also be used for killing is something they share with, say, baseball bats or kitchen knives.

PATH
December 28, 2002, 01:24 AM
So are knives! So are baseball bats. Matches!

Bic pens can cause serious injury or death! When does this nonsense end! Pretty much anything can be used in some fashion to kill somebody.

BamBam
December 28, 2002, 01:27 AM
My guns were made for pleasure shooting and defense. The defense use would actually cause me NOT to be killed.

Also, I've probably shot 100,000 rounds thru handguns. Body count is ZERO. Am I misusing them?

RustyHammer
December 28, 2002, 01:27 AM
..... and so were wives, they just take longer to achieve their goal!

Dan Shapiro
December 28, 2002, 01:36 AM
Duh. Sure, I use guns for sport, but the main reason I got into firearms was self-defense. There are a lot of things that were not designed for "killing" that kill more people then guns.

Cars
Baseball bats and other blunt objects
Etc

Should we ban these?
:rolleyes:

Cal4D4
December 28, 2002, 01:39 AM
Some people need killin'. If one is near me, I hope no one has to resort to an "area control weapon" to do the job.

Derek Zeanah
December 28, 2002, 01:39 AM
If they're going to make the argument that "guns are just killing tools, which makes their owners evil," then you should force them to state that our police and government workers who carry those "evil killing machines" are evil wanna-be killers.

If they won't, then they're admitting that sometimes, lethal force is necessary, or even a good thing (at least compared to the alternatives). And there goes the argument.

These are the same people who claim that you'll never need a gun because if something bad happens, you can just pick up the phone to call people with guns to help out (otherwise known as cops). My attitude is that if I'm ever in a situation where a "man with a gun" is required to come out safely, I can serve in the role in a more timely manner than some $8/hour city employee. No dig against cops -- the reason I'm not one is that it doesn't pay enough.

Bergeron
December 28, 2002, 01:44 AM
A guillitene and hangmans noose were made for killing. Guns were made to propel metal projectiles. Guns can be used for killing, but there's almost nothing that you CAN'T kill someone with. Just because you can kill someone with an object does not mean that it is "made for killing"

The "Guns are made for killing" statement is usually made by an ignorant bliss-ninny that is trying to justify its beliefs.

Preacherman
December 28, 2002, 01:45 AM
Drjones, we need to frame the debate a bit more tightly. If someone says to me "But guns were made to KILL! :eek: ", I say "Well, WHAT were they made to kill?" We can then define hunting, target-shooting, warfare, self-defence, etc. It often boils down to the fact that the anti-gun type hasn't thought through his/her position at all - they just have a knee-jerk reaction that "killing is bad, guns are designed to kill, therefore guns are bad".

You can then debate them. Is killing an animal for food bad? If it is, when did you last buy meat or meat products at Wal-Mart? Someone had to kill that animal for you, and by buying the product, you're defending, supporting, and paying for the killing! Is killing a rapist to stop his attack evil? If it is, are you willing to let him rape you (irrespective of your sex, BTW - many rapists aren't picky!) without resisting? If you are, good luck, but don't expect me to join you! Is it evil to kill an enemy soldier who is part of a cause fighting against your country? If so, how else do you suggest we stop that cause? Any effective, practical, working ideas? - no ideological pipe-dreams, please!

Once you've sorted out these things, you can then get to the instruments involved. For example, you've agreed with your opponent that killing an animal for food is acceptable. Right, then - is there any moral or philosophical difference in how that animal is killed? Surely we'd agree that the quickest, most painless death possible is what's important? Well, then, what is quicker than a rifle bullet? An arrow or spear takes longer to kill; wolves or other predators take longer; what's the objection to the gun?

By adopting this approach, you've deflected the argument from "Guns are designed to KILL!" to their real problem, which is that "Killing is EVIL!" Get to the root of the problem, past the instrument, and you're halfway there already.

HTH.

DeltaElite
December 28, 2002, 01:48 AM
Yup and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I have no "sporting" guns, whatever the hell that is, my guns are for personal defense. :D

Brian Maffei
December 28, 2002, 01:58 AM
They were made to launch a projectile. Whether it kills anything is up to the user.

WonderNine
December 28, 2002, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Drjones
"But guns were made for killing.

What's wrong with that?

sm
December 28, 2002, 02:21 AM
I got into this arument with an instructor in College.
Outside the maintence crew was hosing down the garden area and security was smoking and I asked permission before ...I set the trash can on fire.:D

Instructor : "FIRE...thats a bad thing "
Me: " Well define bad , I mean yeah someone could I guess commit arson, but I think Ugla and Ogla (primitive man and wife) thought the discovery was pretty well needed, warmth , light, cooking ...humm you British do cook food don't ya?..."
Fire put out, Instructor put out , me happy :D

voilsb
December 28, 2002, 02:30 AM
yeah, guns might have *originally* been made to kill. but so were knives, boomerangs, javelins, bows/arrows, baseball bats (aks clubs). but what do they all have in common other than that? they've all developed additional uses. knives turned out to be really useful tools. boomerangs are fun. javelins are in the olympics (so is archery and shooting, IIRC), baseball bats are in baseball.

guns have become tools to demonstrate the shooter's patience, calmness, and skill in target shooting. they can provide food. protect a family. keep the government in check.

3 gun
December 28, 2002, 02:45 AM
And the problem with this is…? We are far down the food chain if we have to give up our tools. The weak are at the mercy of the strong if we have to give up our tools. Most things can be misused, that's not a valid reason to question its purpose for existence.












edit: spell check works fine, I need a proof reader!:rolleyes:

Jeff OTMG
December 28, 2002, 06:02 AM
Brian is correct. A gun is only designed to launch a projectile of some material at some velocity. HOW and in what way that design is employed has nothing to do with the gun itself. This is a key component in the lawsuits against the gun industry. The gun is not responsible for the deaths. It is working exactly as design. It is sucessfully expelling a projectile. The direction that projectile travels is not up to the gun, but the user. How do you think well casing are perforated? They drill a well, set the steel casing, and there a 'gun' (actually kind of looks like a gun) that is sent down the hole to the depth of where the good water is. The 'gun' fires projectiles through the casing allowing the water to flow in. This is only one way to do this, there are others like setting the casing with screens in place set to the correct depth. It all depends on use for the water and expense.

Vladimir Berkov
December 28, 2002, 06:23 AM
Lots of things are made for killing. Most of them are available without a background check, guns are not.

A sharpened stick can be made for killing. Should we ban sharpened sticks?

Lennyjoe
December 28, 2002, 06:33 AM
But guns were MADE for killing

Yea, and a spoon made Rosie O'Donell fat right?

Nanook
December 28, 2002, 08:24 AM
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than any of my guns have. Or any of the guns of everybody I know. Does this mean cars are made for killing?
Let's ban Chevys, "It's for the children" :rolleyes:

BogBabe
December 28, 2002, 08:27 AM
My favorite response is "And what's wrong with that?" Sometimes killing is not only necessary, but good -- and in those cases, you want something that's made for killing.

Other responses:

1. Cars aren't made for killing -- but they kill far more people. This indicates that cars are in fact far more dangerous than guns.

2. My guns are all defective, because they've never killed anybody.

3. 99.something percent of all guns never kill anybody.

4. In 99.something percent of all defensive uses of guns, no one is killed. Guns do their job quite effectively without killing.

5. If you call 911, you are calling men with guns -- which are made for killing -- to come help you.

6. Guns are made to launch small projectiles at high speed. Some guns, indeed, are specifically made for target-shooting or and would be terrible at killing.

7. In self-defense mode, guns are made for stopping the attack. If the attacker is so determined to commit violence on my person that only killing him will stop him, that's his fault, not mine, and I'm glad I have my "killing" gun to stop him.

berettaman
December 28, 2002, 10:17 AM
"These guns were made for killin"
"and that's just what they'll do"
"one of these days these guns are gonna"
"be taken away from you"

:D

Stephen A. Camp
December 28, 2002, 10:22 AM
Hello. No, mine will not be.

Best.

GD
December 28, 2002, 10:23 AM
My favorite response to the statement "Isn't that rifle a dangerous killing instrument" was "You damn right it is!". Liberals believe that they can make Utopia on earth. For them, guns, cigarettes, SUVs, and a host of other "evils" denies them Utopia. You aren't going to change their minds. Just make sure you can exercise more control than they. If SHTF they will be at your door for protection or if their car stops on a highway, they will accept a ride in your SUV.

El Tejon
December 28, 2002, 10:44 AM
Yes. That's exactly why Little Jimmy wrote it down!:)

ROSANGHAL
December 28, 2002, 10:54 AM
Dr. Jones

If you are getting into a discussion that touches on Self-Defense like when I do and get slammed with that statement I just say, "No, my guns OR any guns used in Self Defense are used to stop a violent action that'll be used against you or someone you care for. If the attacker dies then it's a by-product of HIS action not me or my gun. I was forced to use my gun by HIM. So the gun's purpose isn't to kill. It is to stop a violent action and if a death occurs it isn't b/c of the gun it's because of the aggressor."

It mirrors BogBabe's number 7 very closely.

Originally posted by BogBabe

7. In self-defense mode, guns are made for stopping the attack. If the attacker is so determined to commit violence on my person that only killing him will stop him, that's his fault, not mine, and I'm glad I have my "killing" gun to stop him.

Ross T.

m.i.sanders
December 28, 2002, 11:21 AM
Guns are tools. It's up to the user to decide if it's going to be used to kill. I guess from the anti's point of view, if the potential for harm is there, then it must be evil an must be banned. I just haven't figured out why they haven't decided to ban themselves.

gorf
December 28, 2002, 11:54 AM
Guns are designed to initiate or stop aggression. Where is an aggressor likely to go to flex his muscles, a place with a lot of firearms or a place where there are few? The more firearms society has, the safer everyone will be.

Stephen A. Camp
December 28, 2002, 12:05 PM
Hello. In my opinion, Mr. Sanders has it just exactly right.

Best.

Grady
December 28, 2002, 12:36 PM
Not only is my handgun a tool it is also another form of insurance, life insurance to be exact. I know I won't have to explain why.

55645
December 28, 2002, 12:38 PM
Guns were designed to make a 100lb woman the equal of a 200lb man and they do that very well.

dd-b
December 28, 2002, 01:12 PM
It's probably true that the people who first invented guns actually were thinking of killing. So I avoid the "origin" part of the argument as much as possible, and if my opponent insists on it, I suggest that potential and current use are much more important than original intention in deciding how to view something today.

Machetes did most of the killing in Ruwanda, but the victims are just as dead. Cars kill *far* more than guns do in the US each year.

In terms of actual use, guns are used for target shooting, by a statistically massive amount. That's pure hobby/sport activity, very low risk, etc.

Guns were *made* for sending lumps of lead downrange at high velocities.

They're also the center of a massive "collecting" hobby that doesn't even require shooting (in fact the best examples are *too good* to shoot).

John G
December 28, 2002, 01:32 PM
These people really hate reality. Man's first tool was a weapon, it was used to defend and yes, to kill.

dog3
December 28, 2002, 01:39 PM
My guns have killed fewer people than
Ted Kennedy's drinking.

ninenot
December 28, 2002, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Preacherman
Drjones, we need to frame the debate a bit more tightly. If someone says to me "But guns were made to KILL! :eek: ", I say "Well, WHAT were they made to kill?" We can then define hunting, target-shooting, warfare, self-defence, etc. It often boils down to the fact that the anti-gun type hasn't thought through his/her position at all - they just have a knee-jerk reaction that "killing is bad, guns are designed to kill, therefore guns are bad".

HTH.

Following on: after target-shooting, we get to the good stuff. Further analysis: a gun is a tool for killing. Thus, the gun, in and of itself, is a tool . Now we must examine the hands holding the tool.

If your friend agrees that there are good people and bad people, we can go to the definitions of "good" and "bad" use of tools for killing.

Self-defense (in the gravest extreme), for example, should be a "good" use of a killing tool. DEFENSIVE warfare is obviously a "good" use of killing tools.

"In the gravest extreme" is a moral imperative. One may CHOOSE to be a martyr for some worthy cause, but defense of self (and family) is a moral imperative, not an option. Both the Talmud and Thomas Aquinas agree on this; thus, we go back to the "good man."

Now you ask your friend: is a good man, properly trained, and who is "in the gravest extreme" justified in killing?

Since possession of guns is distributed randomly between "good" people and "bad" people, and since the TOOL for self-defense (defense of family, country) is now the question, then we frame it as such:

What is the logical choice of killing tools for legitimate purposes?

It is necessary to utilize tools which can do the most good in the most efficient manner. Unlike knives and bats, the gun (properly used) can achieve either disabling an attacker, or killing the attacker. Further, guns can do this in a very efficient manner. The choice, of course, is to disable rather than kill. But, whereas a bat or knife MAY disable the attacker, a gun, properly used, WILL disable the attacker. Similarly, while a bat or knife MAY kill the attacker, the gun WILL.

From the natural law of self-defense with the proper understanding of the requirements for exercising same, and from the natural law of using the most appropriate TOOLS for any work, we can conclude that guns are optimum.

Dave R
December 28, 2002, 02:05 PM
I disagree with the statement that ALL guns were made for killing.

A "full-race" handgun is made to win IDPA matches.

A slicked up 1911 is probably made to compete in IPSC matches.

A "tricked out" AR is probably made to compete in High Power 1000 yard matches.

A $2k over/under is made to do well in sporting clays.

A well-tuned SA revolver is probably made for Cowboy Action shooting.

None of these guns have death as there primary purpose. They were designed by the maunfacturer, or modified by the owner, for a specific sporting purpose.

As I look through my safe, a smal minority of my guns are primarily to kill things. And those are either hunting arms or personal defense arms.

If guns are made only for killing, why are only a small fraction of 1% of them involved in crimes/killing people?

A larger % of them are used for hunting, but I'll bet that's still less than half of overall guns in the USA. The rest are used for shooting sports. Or just plain fun.

Traveler
December 28, 2002, 03:02 PM
Yes, guns were originally invented to kill. So were clubs, knives, and the bow and arrow. And yet all of these have a sporting purpose today even though they are sometimes used for their original purposes.

It is only in the last 150 years (or less) that our country has become rich enough to support a considerable number of people to whom death is not an everyday occurance. We don't have kill the food before we prepare it any more. We don't have to depend on ourselves to restrain the majority of the criminal element. For a large number of people the only only way they have to face death is with the passing of a family member or a pet.

So now we sit at a pinnacle of weath denied to 99% of the people on earth, in luxury your great grandparents could only imagine. And because you think your safe you no longer see a need for owning a gun. What you don't see is that you are protected by those same guns you despise. This countries police, military, and private protection sevices work for you. And the guns you pay them to carry so that your hands won't get dirty allow you to believe in your moral superiourity.

Well, God help you if that pedestal ever falls, or if someone less fortunate climbs the walls you've set up. Be sure to hold your beliefs up and see how they protect you without the will and way to enforce them.

As for me, I'm content to live at a level of civilization somewhere below you. I kill my own food, I served my country honorably to feel entitled to it's benefits, and I depend on myself for personal security. This does allow me a much greater range in where I can live and visit although the world's a little more dangerous out here. I guess you could say I prefer greater freedom to safety.

Now you just stay in your guilded birdcage. Death will find you there too.

HS/LD
December 28, 2002, 03:12 PM
Arguement:
But guns are MADE for killing!!!


Reply:
"Yep, you are very perceptive. So you point is?"

Ask questions to regain control of the discussion.

Gun ARE made to kill.
To harvest game.
To be used in defense.
To be used in offense.

So whats the arguement now??

Regards,
HS/LD

Yohan
December 28, 2002, 03:44 PM
Guns weren't made for killing. They were made to spit out lead. Can't help it if a person or two gets in front of them from time to time. Cars were made for transportation but people still get hit.

larryw
December 28, 2002, 03:49 PM
That's a common form of argument used by liberals to illustrate and "prove" their shallow point of view: "<noun> is <adjective>". They seem to feel that these short sound bites are all anyone needs to form a balanced world view, they'll repeat them ad-nauseam, and its up to everyone else to refute. They don't need no stinkin' proof (or, it seems, reason).

Fine. There are lots of great suggestions here and they form strategies can be used to break down any similar argument.

I've found the easiest means is to ask "what's wrong/right with that?" Break the statement/argument into its component pieces and they fall apart. Thought and discussion is what the liberals want to avoid, so the "smart" ones :rolleyes: launch into belittlement, deflection and other childish behavior to avoid such discussion.

"Guns are made for killing."
"What's wrong with that?"
"Killing is 'bad'"
"How's your steak?" or "Nice leather belt/shoes/jacket." (use that one to really piss off PETA clowns) or a whole litany of other comments.
"Fine" or "Thanks" (or, PETA: "%#*!-off jerk!")
"So not all killing is 'bad'?"
"Not all, I guess"
Gotcha!

Yohan
December 28, 2002, 03:58 PM
Here's another one

"But guns were made for killing"
"Was your mouth made for complaining?"
"Well no"
"Then shut up"

Brian Maffei
December 28, 2002, 05:10 PM
Hahaha. Good one, Yohan.

P12
December 28, 2002, 06:20 PM
Damn right! That's why I carry a 45 with JHP. When someone is attacking me, I want the attack stopped ASAP!

Yohan
December 28, 2002, 08:30 PM
"But guns were made for killing!"
"Yeah and my hands were made for slapping little cry babies *SLAP*"

mmm.. maybe not.

dairycreek
December 28, 2002, 09:11 PM
is absolutely true. The historical veracity of the statement stands without challenge or equivocation. A fact of life as it were. When a person makes that statement he/she is absolutely right. It is when he/she makes the next statement which draws some sort of unrelated/unsupported conclusion that conversations usually go to hell in a handbag. For instance, "Guns were made to kill" and people who like guns are killers. Clearly, the conclusion is not related to the premise and you can usually make conversational mince meat out of these kind of people. If , on the other hand, they are the true blue, liberal, zealot then, in my experience, no amout of logic makes any difference. I just smile, nod my head, and try to move in some other direction. You can't win 'em all and some aren't worth trying to win.

Calamity Jane
December 28, 2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by P12
Damn right! That's why I carry a 45 with JHP. When someone is attacking me, I want the attack stopped ASAP!

Yuppers. As far as self-defense efficacy goes, harsh language really won't do much. :p

Sheesh. Blissninnies. Whatareyagonnado.

hansolo
December 28, 2002, 11:13 PM
While reading all the above posts, a thought was forming in my head of a simple example: the next BlissNinny who starts on an ainti-gun tirade will get something like this:

"Remember the Manson-directed murders in 1969? Let's focus on the Sharon Tate murder; I think we all agree that was a horrible nightmare." At this point, all BlissNinneys would be nodding in agreement. "You know what? It could have been avoided." Huh? "If any one of the guests at that house was a halfway trained shooter who was carrying, they could have possibly killed/wounded the Manson Gang enough to send them running."

I know the truly hardcore Liberals would still say, "No guns, no way. The Police would have saved them if they had called in time" -- Yes, if their car was about 30 seconds from the house. :rolleyes:

Kevinch
December 29, 2002, 12:52 AM
As mentioned, they were invented as weapons and are still used as such.

But we also use them for sport, as they have been forever. Their use in sport, and in a defensive role as a weapon, is easy to understand.

My response would be "so what's your point?"

Blackhawk
December 29, 2002, 01:05 AM
Actually, guns were originally made for war. The most highly trained, therefore most expensive, warriors were bowmen. It took lots and lots of practice and skill to hit a specific target with an arrow.

When gunpowder was used to launch a projectile over long distances, accuracy wasn't any better than that of a proficient longbowman, but it was really CHEAP to teach somebody to load and shoot the machine. Plus, when the shooter became a casualty, it was covnenient to give the gun to the next shooter, etc.

It was a long time before guns became usable as personal weapons.

Guns were made to win wars. And war implements do not have the primary purpose of killing. Their primary purpose is to wound, maim, or otherwise take a combatant out while terrorizing his fellows. Bacteria and blood loss generally did most of the killing started by guns of old.

In any event, your answers to this point address your real question pretty well.

G-Raptor
December 29, 2002, 01:51 AM
Thou Shalt Not MURDER


Murder is the taking of a life without just cause. Killing is different. The killing of animals is necessary for survival. The killing of another human being may also be necessary for your survival. Killing quickly and efficiently, when it is necessary, not only helps to ensure your survival, it is also a humane act for the P.O.S. that tried to take your life.

A gun is quick and efficient.

"But guns are made for killing..." is an emotional argument. My response would be:

"Do you oppose killing under any circumstances or do you just prefer a slower, more painful method?"

King
December 29, 2002, 09:30 AM
Good response BogBabe.......

Diane
December 29, 2002, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by RustyHammer
..... and so were wives, they just take longer to achieve their goal!



that was cute!

even with me being a wife and all that goes with it!

Que
February 25, 2007, 01:11 PM
"Guns were invented to kill..."
"Guns do not kill, people do!"

It is unclear as to the origins of these two quotes or phrases, but the second is oft used as a counter argument against the first. However, it is well known that every coin has two sides, and these two phrases are precisely that... two sides to the same coin, and the coin in this case, is killing, whether that killing is lawful or unlawful, hunting or war... The purpose or intention of the people who invented the 'gun' was solely for a single purpose... to killing!

That is not to say that there are no other weapons that can be used to kill, nor is it to say that the origin of other items did not stem from them being a weapon for killing... for example the baseball bat... this could easily have been derived from some weapon of war for killing...

The fact is, this arguments are null and void and cannot be used to invalidate the purpose for which the gun was invented. The fact that any subsequent use for the gun has come come about does not detract from its original intent...and nor has the original intent been changed or nullified.

It has been stated that there are more deaths by other means than by the gun, again, this is wrong... the simple fact is that in the USA, 92% of all deaths are carried out by firearms! Not by other means.

PLease be sure of the facts before making blase statements that have not been researched.

There has been no sound argument to refute the original intent of a gun... unlike any other weapon, its sole purpose was for killing, be that in self-defence, murder, war or hunting!

This is not to say they should be banned... because banning them would not be a solution, it will just make the problem change colour... What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation.

However, no amount of legislation will ever curb man's desire to kill, and until that desire changes, no law, no ban, will stop it!

Please be sure of what is written before it gets written!

EDIT: Knives were not invented to kill, they were invented to skin, to cut, and not to kill...

fatelk
February 25, 2007, 01:34 PM
the simple fact is that in the USA, 92% of all deaths are carried out by firearms! Not by other means.

What?!! This is the most ridiculous factoid I have ever heard! No reference as to where you got this number (Brady campaign?), it's just spewed out as it it were fact. What about automobiles, drugs, and swimming pools? Even if you just meant murder, 92% sounds like it was picked out of thin air.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

PLease be sure of the facts before making blase statements that have not been researched.

Yes, please do.

lobo264
February 25, 2007, 01:35 PM
Welcome Que,

I found this rather amusing:
It has been stated that there are more deaths by other means than by the gun, again, this is wrong... the simple fact is that in the USA, 92% of all deaths are carried out by firearms! Not by other means.

PLease be sure of the facts before making blase statements that have not been researched.

My scamper through USDOJ statistics on crime shows that firearms were used in about 60% of all murders.

I'm curious to know where your figure of 92% of ALL deaths were carried out by guns came from.

Think about it a sec.

That all thing is pretty darn inclusive.

Lobo

ETA: beat to the punch. D'oh!

Smith357
February 25, 2007, 01:37 PM
Guns were originally intended to be used as siege weapons. The first role of the gun was to bring down fortress walls, and it was much smaller than a trebuget. Once the fortress walls were down the killing was done with sword and bow.

Many guns today are designed with killing as their primary function, many are not, and are completely impractical for killing anything.

ZeSpectre
February 25, 2007, 02:05 PM
Good GOD, this thread is from 2002! :neener:

Juna
February 25, 2007, 02:11 PM
All knives & sharp instruments were also made to kill originally. Guns were originally designed during a time in which people had to kill what they wanted to eat. They couldn't drop into Wal-Mart and pick up some ground beef.

Since then, guns have been designed both to kill (which includes self defense, hunting, etc.) or for "sporting purposes" (target/match shooting).

They were made to launch a projectile. Whether it kills anything is up to the user.

Well said. I use this one, too. In reality, all guns do is direct a projectile in the direction of the muzzle. It's just like using a pool cue to hit the cue ball into the 8 ball into the corner pocket. Darts, baseball, football, basketball, bowling, etc. are all sports that involve directing a projectile toward a desired location in space. Guns are no different. If your desired location is another person b/c you're being assaulted, then so be it. Most of the time, our targets are paper.

The important point is that the USER decides where the projectile (i.e. bullet) goes. Guns don't just "go off" or "spray bullets". The bullets come out of a long barrel that is deliberately aimed at something (or someone). This is a good argument in support of legalizing automatic weapons, IMO. All the bullets, regardless of how many you're shooting, will go only in the direction you aim the gun. It's not like an explosive where shrapnel is thrown all over the place.

fatelk
February 25, 2007, 02:14 PM
92% of all deaths are carried out by firearms

Another thing that makes me think this is straight from Gun Control Inc.: carried out by firearms? The gun just jumped up and carried out a killing? I'm sure glad I have mine locked up in a safe, or they might get together in the middle of the night and decide to carry out some death!

No wonder antis insist you must store your ammo in another locked safe in another part of the house; the firearm itself may just decide to load itself and blast it's way to freedom.

As to the original topic of the post, I have guns that absolutely were originally made for the express purpose of killing; does that mean I have any intent to ever kill anything with them? NO.
My grandfather's Arisaka he brought back from Japan was made to kill American soldiers. It is just a chunk of wood and metal, and will never get the chance to accomplish its original purpose, no matter how much its maker wanted it to. It has no soul, no will. Its purpose changes depending on who is in possesion of it.

akodo
February 25, 2007, 02:18 PM
stick em with the dali lama quote

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

Yes, guns were made for killing, but the question is, killing WHO?

People killing people has been around for a long time, guns allow the average folk to stand up to the strongmen. Guns allow a single man to stand up to a mob. An armed mob can still overrun an armed man, but it will cost a lot more than when an unarmed mob could easily destroy an unarmed man, enough to cause even an armed and angry mob to think twice. This allows even a single man to stand up for what is right in the face of overwhelming opposition. To me, that has real value.

Further, handguns WEREN'T made for killing. If handguns were made for killing, they would have made em bigger, and longer, and put more powerful catridges in em. Handguns are made so you can level a deadly threat at someone and have them surrender, and so you can stick it in your pocket or holster and use both hands. If you are really interested in killing, you don't bother with a handgun, you get a rifle.

SuperNaut
February 25, 2007, 02:29 PM
Be careful to not let the anti frame the debate. "Guns are designed for killing" is a red herring, designed to divert you and reframe the debate. Killing is a part of everyday modern life. Killing as defined by an anti is the ultimate negative, despite the fact that we humans cannot make it through the day without utilizing something that has been killed. Killing isn't neccessarily always a negative thing.

We humans have devised many tools over the millenia to help us kill with greater effeciency; whether it is an enemy or food, flora, fauna, etc. We should be grateful that guns are designed to kill, we wouldn't exist as a society or as individuals without them. Is the anti really such a luddite that they would prefer that killing be done with clubs, or bare hands? The evolution of weaponry to modern firearms is actually one of the more humane of mankinds multitude of killing tools.

Using the "guns are designed for killing" as an argument actually illustrates the huge disconnect from reality that antis suffer. The pretense that we have no need for such tools, or the pretense that we could survive as a society without humane killing tools. It is a raw and difficult reality to face, but it is the truth. There is also a strong desire to pretend that humanity does not have predators anymore, that there is no need for protection against monsters. I can understand the resistance to these dark truths and thoughts, I cannot understand the denial of them however.

F4GIB
February 25, 2007, 02:33 PM
Olin Winchester put it best over 100 years ago. "A gun is a machine for throwing balls."

In modern terms, a machine for propelling a projectile downrange at high velocity. What the projectile hits is in the control of the operator, not the machine. Aim it at paper, you get one result. Aim it at a game animal, you get another. YOU choose and control the result.

Guy B. Meredith
February 25, 2007, 03:09 PM
Item 1: The notion that 92% of deaths are by firearms' owners or even mishandling is not based on any factual information for firearms owned by civilians. This can fly only if military action is included. Neither firearms nor civilian firearms owners can take responsibility for that.

Item 2: Guns are NOT just made for killing. Guns were designed for destructive purposes--as were the ancestors of some clubs/bats used in common sports.

HOWEVER, the fact is that a huge number of guns today are designed and produced for the sole purpose of marksmanship and other non lethal sports. In fact, I contend that non-lethal use is now the main function of civilian firearms.

I do not have figures to support my contention, but I have personally built over 25,000 rounds of ammunition for handguns, every one meant for target shooting. I have shot as many as 10,000 commercial rounds for the same purpose.

Compare my own personal quantity to the number of rounds fired from civilian firearms used for harming people. Multiply that times the number of people involved in non lethal sports activity and I think my contention holds.

.cheese.
February 25, 2007, 03:19 PM
It is a difficult point to argue with I'll admit.

There is no real argument against the fact that guns were invented to either kill or injure.

However, unfortunately the reality of life necessitates such inventions. The usage of guns in a modern context is what can be debated. Some are used for killing or injuring, sometimes to stop an attack, and unfortunately sometimes to instigate such an attack.

Another point that cannot be argued against is that a gun is one of the most effective and quick means to stop any attack or threat against your life or that of those around you.

If that need didn't exist, then guns wouldn't be around.

I'm not going to claim that I only own guns to punch holes in paper. To do so would be incorrect, incomplete, and just a lie. To date, that has been my only usage of them. However, a day might arise during which I will need to use a gun for its primary task. We can all hope that day doesn't come, however to deny ourselves the ability to prepare for it by focusing on an essentially trivial argument would be to ignore the realities of our own existence.

bthest86
February 25, 2007, 03:22 PM
"Guns are designed to kill people"

There must be something wrong with my guns then.:(

Werewolf
February 25, 2007, 03:33 PM
"But guns were MADE for killing"
I am having a hard time rebutting this.

I can't quantify my thoughts.

Help!Uhhhhhh... YEAH! So what's yur point?

Notch
February 25, 2007, 03:36 PM
Guns were in fact made for killing or defense. But then people developed a sport, a love and a pastime aroundthem as well. It is no different than baseball bats, because clubs were made for chrushing skulls. Then we found out another way to use them. Poisons and venoms are there to kill, but we use them to treat maladies now. Illegal aliens were meant to be criminals, now we have turned them into a protected class... See it happens everywhere.....

I was asked once by a cop if I had any WEAPONS in my car. I told him "No, I do have two firearms in my car." Those being two rifles I had just been to the range with. Something is a weapon if it is used as one. A gun, a bat, a kitchen knife, all these can be determined a weapon. But they ALL have non violent uses as well.

oldfart
February 25, 2007, 03:37 PM
I take a gun, which was indeed designed for killing, and use it for sport.

Someone else takes a baseball bat, designed for sport and uses it to kill.

Which is worse?

ARTiger
February 25, 2007, 03:39 PM
Here's a rebuttal . . .

How many gunshots were fired in the USA today? How many people were killed today by gunfire in the USA? Divide the second answer into the first and you'll get the percentage of "killings" where a gun was used as the tool.

What about the other 99.9999% of gunshots? They were for sport. Whether it's taking a deer, bird, punching a hole in a paper target or even blasting away full-auto at an old car in somebody's back 40 . . . those are all sporting uses.

So, if a tool is 99.9999% used for sporting purposes, calling said tool "made for killing is assinine".

Replace knife for gun in the first questions above and the % used to kill is probably higher. Cars would also probably be much higher. Heck even fists and feet can be used to kill . . . should everyone have a quadruple amputation performed at birth?

Sense people . . . just plain common sense.

carpediem
February 25, 2007, 03:49 PM
Guns were made for punching holes in castle walls and knightly armor...other uses came later. They are supremely efficient hole punches. What you're punching a hole in depends on the shooter, not the tool.

Edit - I just realized this is a REALLY old thread 8-o

.cheese.
February 25, 2007, 03:53 PM
Oh wow. I just noticed that too. 2002. Geez.

joab
February 25, 2007, 03:56 PM
Anybody care to guess what weapon was used in the first recorded murder in history?

Guns are designed to kill
They were invented to help people defend themselves against people with big sticks and pointy things

carpediem
February 25, 2007, 03:59 PM
Anybody care to guess what weapon was used in the first recorded murder in history?

Traditionally, that would be Genesis 4 ;)

FerFAL
February 25, 2007, 04:11 PM
Easy.
Yes, guns are made for killing. There are things in life worth killing or dieing for. If you don’t have any, then you still need a gun, but only one round will suffice…
That’s my patented reply for the “guns are made for killing” question, works every time. ;)

FerFAL

joab
February 25, 2007, 04:22 PM
Yep and he used a big ole stick

Thain
February 25, 2007, 04:31 PM
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!"

- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity

shield20
February 25, 2007, 04:33 PM
It has been stated that there are more deaths by other means than by the gun, again, this is wrong... the simple fact is that in the USA, 92% of all deaths are carried out by firearms! Not by other means.

PLease be sure of the facts before making blase statements that have not been researched.

WHO came up with this crap??? That isn't even close!! Guns aren't even in the top 10 causes! BE SURE OF THE FACTS!?! THEN LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS!!..

(NCIPC)

In 2004 in the US, suicides were the #11 cause of all deaths, where 1.4% of ALL deaths were by suicide. Guns were used to commit suicide 51.6% of the time, - for 16,750 deaths = only .7% OF ALL deaths

ALL Homicides were the #15 cause of ALL deaths, at only .7%. Guns were used only 67% of the time to commit homicide - roughly 11,624 deaths = only .47% OF ALL DEATHS.

Add in 649 deaths for ALL accidental firearm deaths, and...


Firearms are only involved in roughly 1.2% of ALL DEATHS in the USA


Only .009% of the population will use firearms to tragically cause a death, their own or of someone else's, annually. And that small amount of selfish individuals should NOT IN ANY WAY be used to disable natural rights of the other 99.991% of us!

illspirit
February 25, 2007, 04:38 PM
The fact is, this arguments are null and void and cannot be used to invalidate the purpose for which the gun was invented. The fact that any subsequent use for the gun has come come about does not detract from its original intent...and nor has the original intent been changed or nullified.

And? The internet's original purpose was so that the military could launch nukes (ergo, kill lots of people) even if they lost a city or base in the middle of the network from an enemy attack. The fact that any subsequent use for the internet has come come about does not detract from its original intent...and nor has the original intent been changed or nullified.

So why are you using the internet? Do you want to blow up lots of innocent children?! :rolleyes:

K3
February 25, 2007, 04:39 PM
WHO came up with this crap??? That isn't even close!! Guns aren't even in the top 10 causes! BE SURE OF THE FACTS!!!!

In 2004 in the US, suicides were the #11 cause of all deaths, where 1.4% of ALL deaths were by suicide. Guns were used to commit suicide 51.6% of the time, for only .7% OF ALL deaths.

ALL Homicides were the #15 cause of ALL deaths, at only .7%. Guns were used only 67% of the time to commit homicide - .47% OF ALL DEATHS. [/i]

Add in .6% for ALL accidental firearm deaths, and

Firearms are only involved in roughly 1.8% of ALL DEATHS in the USA


Only .009% of the population will use firearms to tragically cause a death, their own or of someone else's, annually.

Hehe, I guess cancer, heart disease, and car accidents make up the other 8% of all the deaths in the US. :D

Threeband
February 25, 2007, 04:41 PM
This is not to say they should be banned... because banning them would not be a solution, it will just make the problem change colour... What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place....


Now that is some SCARY European thinking. Didn't you guys learn anything from the 20th century?

GOVERNMENTS are the real killers.

The solution is NOT "One World Government with a monopoly on guns."

That is a prescription for Hell on Earth.

Accept the fact that Utopia is impossible. John Lennon's song "Imagine" is a description of the Cambodian Killing Fields (for which he bears some responsibility, in my opinion).

You CAN NOT eliminate guns. They are easier to mass produce than drugs.

The best you can hope for is:

Keep Governments small, divided within themselves and among themselves.

Make sure the COMMON People maintain ownership of guns, not for hunting or sport, but as a counterbalance to Government power.

THAT is a description of the original vision of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

That's what we are so desperately trying to hang on to on this side of the pond.

Ringer
February 25, 2007, 05:03 PM
So someone joins yesterday and revives a 5 year old thread with their only post which includes the simple fact is that in the USA, 92% of all deaths are carried out by firearms! Not by other means.
This thread should go back to it's resting place.

Cesiumsponge
February 25, 2007, 05:16 PM
Duh, heart disease and smoking deaths are gun related. Gun nuts tell people to eat greasy foods and smoke cartons of cigarettes by gunpoint. Car accidents are caused by people waving guns out of their car windows. All those kids drowning in pools? They tripped over guns.



...seriously though, I think whoever made that claim has seen the Die Hard movies one too many times.

SaMx
February 25, 2007, 05:26 PM
Here's what I always say.

A gun is a weapon. Lots of people say that a gun is just a tool, and that's true, it's a specific kind of tool, a weapon. But because something is a weapon doesn't mean it should be banned. The world is a violent place, and sometimes a peaceful person has need for a weapon. It's my belief that every citizen, who is not a criminal, has the right to own a weapon peacefully. Sam Adams said, "And that the said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

On top of that, prohibition of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs certainly isn't working, so why would prohibition of guns work? Guns are a durable good, they last a long time. They are small enough to smuggle easily, and they can be manufactured without too much difficulty. If guns are prohibited, all you do is create a black market for guns, and when you create a black market you create crime, because the only way to settle disputes in a black market is violence.

SaMx
February 25, 2007, 05:28 PM
All those kids drowning in pools? They tripped over guns.
llvh

Lamb of Gun
February 25, 2007, 05:41 PM
Key word here is MADE not ARE MADE.

Yes guns, at one, time were specifically made to kill. But now, a massive amount of guns are designed be shot at clay targets, paper targets or metal targets that reset themselves.

At one time Aspertame was made for chemical warfare, but now it's used in Diet Coke.

SaMx
February 25, 2007, 06:19 PM
The problem with that is that it says "some guns were made for killing but some are not," and that says that it's ok to ban guns that are weapons; Handguns, EBRs etc. The second amendment is to protect arms, not sporting goods.

Guy B. Meredith
February 25, 2007, 06:59 PM
Shouldn't need 2nd Amendment protection on firearms in general--it's a matter of personal freedoms not being limited as long as those freedoms are not causing harm to others. If an individual harms others, that individual needs limitations. Other individuals should not carry responsibility or have their freedoms limited due to actions of another.

Our kin in the Commonwealth have other ideas and prefer that all society suffer for the sins of others. As do our own control freaks and bigots.

EyebrowZing
February 25, 2007, 07:54 PM
I get a kick out of this one.

EDIT: Knives were not invented to kill, they were invented to skin, to cut, and not to kill...

Then as a stone age hunter, what am I supposed to kill my rabbit with? Unless you suggest I skin and fillet my meal while it's still alive.
Unless... Hey, I could use my knife to kill it. Whoa, I guess it is possible to use something for a purpose other than what it was invented for.

So now I can use my knife that was invented for cutting to kill things instead, and use my gun that was made for killing as an expensive hole-punch.
:D

230RN
February 25, 2007, 08:08 PM
And hammers were designed to drive nails. And yet....

And icepicks were designed to split ice. And yet...

And bats were designed to drive horsehide spheres out of the park. And yet...

And beer bottles were designed to contain a fermented brew. And yet...

SoCalShooter
February 25, 2007, 08:14 PM
Hammers are made of hitting things...if that happens to include people or animals then I guess it has the capacity to kill.

http://www.kcom.edu/faculty/chamberlain/Website/TOPTEN99.HTM


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html


http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html


http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/topdeath.htm

Derby FALs
February 25, 2007, 08:17 PM
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

illspirit
February 25, 2007, 08:33 PM
At one time Aspertame was made for chemical warfare, but now it's used in Diet Coke.
Wait, you mean Diet Coke isn't a chemical warfare munition? It sure had me fooled. :p

Firethorn
February 25, 2007, 08:57 PM
I think that Que's a troll.

I'll wait on changing my mind until he shows up again.

U.S.SFC_RET
February 25, 2007, 09:48 PM
Damn straight guns were made for killing! That's what they were made for. There is no other reason for making most of them in the first place. Their original intent and purpose was to kill. Crawling out of that was sporting, hunting, shooting clays and target shooting and not necessary in that order.
All of my guns were made to kill and make no mistake about it. Guns killed my uncle and my brother in-law because of their stupidity, they thought their guns were unloaded. Don't call me a fool. I served in the Army for 20 years, what in God's creation do you think they handed me from the get go? It was an M16 and they told me that it wasn't built to handle and play marching band with, it was to kill. Punch a steel pot at 400 meters and they showed me how to do it. You cannot tell me that guns weren't built and not meant to kill other people. Your country's security rides on that fact. Your security and your family's security rides on that fact as well. You might want to twirl them and set them in a holster but that wasn't what they were made for. They weren't made for putting up on a wall either to look at. They are not a trophy although you might put up one and call that particular firearm a trophy. If you are trying to change the mind of a bleeding heart liberal about the very idea of what a gun is than you are believing the very same lie that you are telling them yourself.
The primary nature of a gun is to kill so don't kid yourself. If you hunt, They kill. If you are in the Army or Marines they do the bidding of your country.
If you are in a SHTF situation they will bring a huge sense of peace in your life. Ask Los Angeles (twice)Ask New Orleans and Parts of South Louisiana, and Parts of South Mississippi . Ask any Law Enforcement Officer who is worth his salt, those boys in blue are the thin blue line and the only thing that is separating much of this society from a civilized society from a denigrated and ruthless anarchy.
Those Police officers will tell you guns are made for killing, theirs and the crap they have to face from criminals and the like who have zero respect for the badge.

razorburn
February 25, 2007, 10:26 PM
Then as a stone age hunter, what am I supposed to kill my rabbit with? Unless you suggest I skin and fillet my meal while it's still alive.
Unless... Hey, I could use my knife to kill it. Whoa, I guess it is possible to use something for a purpose other than what it was invented for.

He's actually right about the knives. All evidence suggests they were used as tools to process food. They were first small stone flakes entirely too fragile for killing. There's a lot of blunt instruments that can be used to kill game.

bowline
February 26, 2007, 05:03 AM
This is not to say they should be banned... because banning them would not be a solution, it will just make the problem change colour... What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation

Que is a troll. Dug up a years-old thread for this.

Still, if someone makes this statement, I ask why they say it as if it were a bad thing.
Start mentioning names, beginning with Charlie Manson, ending with Pol Pot or Hitler.
There are people that "Need Killin'". I'd much rather do it with a pistol than a nuke.

ArfinGreebly
February 26, 2007, 06:02 AM
Ahh, socialism, as delivered on the carrier of institutional psychology. Wonderful.

Under psycho-socialism, killing is bad unless performed by murderers. Murderers are simply acting out, had bad childhoods, are temporarily insane, whatever. They can't help themselves, so morally they get a free pass.

Defending yourself though, that's a rational act and you can't claim diminished capacity, so you're clearly guilty of premeditated self defense.

Especially if you defended yourself with a gun. Because guns are just made for killing, so you were planning to kill your assailant before you even knew who he was.

Of course guns are made for killing.
That's why police kill several people per day as part of their quota.

Of course guns are made for killing.
My question is, why do you think you should be killed?

Of course guns are made for killing.
Who are you afraid you'll kill?

Of course guns are made for killing.
You think a rapist would run away from a cell phone?

Of course guns are made for killing.
Or perhaps you'd prefer to chase a deer down and club it to death.

Of course guns are made for killing.
I tried for months to get my own policeman with one of those killing gun thingies to protect me.
They wouldn't let me have one. They told me to get my own gun and quit whining.

Of course guns are made for killing.
If governments didn't keep trying to establish tyranny we wouldn't need the damned things.
Do you think you could do something about that whole corrupt government/tyranny thing so I can stop having to own guns?

Of course guns are made for killing.
Food is so much harder to cook when it won't hold still.

Of course guns are made for killing.
Killing is a long established and honorable tradition of mankind.
Conquerers and tyrants have long known it's the best way to get rid of unwanted population segments and bothersome individuals.

Of course guns are made for killing.
You didn't think we were just gonna hand over our rights and freedoms without a fight, did you?

Of course guns are made for killing.
Years of research has shown killing is a fine deterrent.

Finch
February 26, 2007, 06:18 AM
No, guns were made for defense. Death is just the reaction to the bullets.

razorburn
February 26, 2007, 07:41 AM
They really were created to kill. There's absolutely no question that guns were invented for this purpose. They are simply weapons, used not only for defense but offense. The 1st gonnes were created as an offensive instrument, to try to get some advantage over the enemies who didn't have them. We're never going to get to paint guns as furry animal petters, and there's no need to sugar coat it here with our fellow gun owners. It's something I'm at terms with. Killing is just a word with a negative connotation. But as... base as it sounds, there's things worse than killing, and circumstances where killing is a better alternative. Heh, that still doesn't make it sound so appetizing, I suppose.


You know, I enjoy using guns to shoot targets, plink, look at, etc, and many other activities. There's a lot of things I enjoy doing with my guns that don't involve killing. They entertain and are enjoyable to me, regardless of the intent of their basic design. But looking at it objectively, I do wonder if the purpose for the existence of guns is just a lesser evil? Then again, I suppose all things are lesser evils to some ideal? Interesting topic.

.cheese.
February 26, 2007, 08:07 AM
To whoever said aspartame was originally developed for chemical-warfare - that's an urban legend - just so you know. It was developed for its current usage - nothing else. While its effects on bladder cancer can be disputed, its original intended purpose cannot be - despite all of the articles online that want you to think it was led by Donald Rumsfeld in a chemical warfare experiement and later forced to be FDA approved for human consumption.

That's all BS.

Now you know.

rbernie
February 26, 2007, 10:13 AM
"But guns were MADE for killing"
That's a fact. And the best way for me to make sure that I stay on the correct side of one at all times is for me to have it in my hand.

1911Tuner
February 26, 2007, 10:48 AM
The gun was designed in order to extend the will of its wielder...whatever that will may be. The gun is a tool. To quote Massad Ayoob...A "remote control drill" that is used to make a hole in whatever needs a hole in it from a distance beyond contact range. The gun is like any other tool or machine...Unable to do anything at all without human intervention.

Man has been continually developing ways and means to make his actions more efficient since he first began to walk upright, and figured out that a rock or a stick made him a more efficient killer and a more difficult victim. Man is a toolmaker.

Man is also basically a predator. The canine teeth and the eyes mounted in the front of his head are testament to that fact. So, maybe a more accurate statement would be that Homo Sapien was designed to kill. The use of a tool to expedite the act is incidental.

Sylvan-Forge
February 26, 2007, 11:08 AM
Que,
First off, welcome to The High Road.

It has been stated that there are more deaths by other means than by the gun, again, this is wrong... the simple fact is that in the USA, 92% of all deaths are carried out by firearms! Not by other means.
False. Heart disease, cancer, stroke and other physical malady make up the bulk of deaths in the USA.
If you are referring to criminal homicide (not justifiable), in which the type of weapon is specified, in year 2005, firearms were used in 72.6% of the offenses. Per http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html



This is not to say they should be banned... because banning them would not be a solution, it will just make the problem change colour.
Were a ban somehow magically able to remove all firearms from the face of the earth and even greater magics employed to deny any future construction,
we would then see the rates for murder simply shift to other means such as blunts, edged, hand and foot.



.. What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation.
This is a contradiction.
New legislation would in fact be neccessary in order to over-ride or repeal the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The fact that the UN world body has used or encouraged direct arms control measures or embargos will not make for a logical or moral argument. Please see Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, etc. for examples of "control", genocide and in some cases, the cowardly and malicious retreat or complete absence of UN forces. Some "protectors", eh?
Take note of what strict gun laws have done for Sudan.

If you are disarmed, you are at the mercy of the armed.



However, no amount of legislation will ever curb man's desire to kill, and until that desire changes, no law, no ban, will stop it!
Agreed.

Deanimator
February 26, 2007, 11:11 AM
My usual replies to such mind-numbing stupidity:

1. What was my High Standard Citation made to "kill"?

2. Explain why an intended victim killing Ted Bundy would have been a BAD thing.

In my general experience, people who say the sort of things which you quoted have led sheltered, trivial lives in which social ostracism is the ultimate in negative consequences for ones actions, real or perceived. They actually think that a rapist or serial killer will stop their activities forthwith merely because you wag a disapproving finger in front of his face. It's never occurred to them (because very little of substance occurs to them in an intellectual context) that there are people who simply don't care about their "feelings" and who would skin them alive for the pure enjoyment of it.

They're too stupid to realize that when dealing with certain people, you have to bow to the inevitable, shoot them in the face and go on with life. That simple truism requires them to see the world as it really is and to take responsibility for their own existence. This makes them sad.

1911Tuner
February 26, 2007, 11:17 AM
Quote:

>If you are disarmed, you are at the mercy of the armed.<
************

Yes. Those who beat their swords into plows usually wound up doing the plowing for those who didn't.

Que...Ya really need to get a clue.

-terry
February 26, 2007, 01:31 PM
C'mon, U.S., don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

mrcpu
February 26, 2007, 02:34 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure it's a statement that needs rebutting.

Titan6
February 26, 2007, 03:10 PM
Some Captain was briefing us about the military pay and benefits and somewhere towards the end he said 'all in all not bad pay for basically being a hired assassin...'. Poorer choice of words I have seldom heard in the years since.

Guns sure are a tool for killing. There is no way to dispute this. Anyone that can't handle that responsibility should not take it on. However there is no where on Earth that you will go and not find a gun or someone with the means to do somone else in. It is a problem as old as Cain and Able. All we can do is work towards making it easier for people to live with one another.

I noticed after the huge increase in the number of armed Americans after AWB I the murder rate and most crime rates did drop a little for the first time in 60 or so years. So maybe arming more peolple helps. Disarming them does not seem to.

Zero_DgZ
February 26, 2007, 03:14 PM
Yes, guns are made for killing. Some killing, or the threat of killing, is justified. Get over it. If you don't like killing, become a Quaker and move out to the country and leave people alone instead of whining at them about the killing, and then they won't feel compelled to kill you or involve you in anything attached to killing.

The Grand Inquisitor
February 26, 2007, 03:40 PM
I didn't look through all of the replies, but even though this arguement is initally compelling, it completely falls apart when closely looked at.

It's true that guns are desgined and built for mainly military purposes, but, like any other item, they can easily be re-purposed.

The public/private military industry (the famed "military industrial complex") in this country spends BILLIONS of dollars each year funding and subsidising public and private research (mainly through Universities like MIT, CalTech, Harvard, etc etc) and countless other endevours.

Just because the money is coming from the military does not mean that this money is going into guns and grenades---plenty of money is going into biotechnology, conceptual physics, nano-tech, psychology, and even Religous Studies (I know this specifically because I'm invovled in the academic community and there are plenty of Religious Studies departments that have strong Islamic scholars that are getting money shoved down their throats).

The military industrial complex has revolutionized the technology industry and generally what happens is that when something is being developed, the government and military sees what they can do with the technology, and if they decide it isn't for them, they kick it out to the private sector.

This is the case to some extent concerning the development of computers, the internet, and microchips.

All that said, just because something is funded and created by the military, that does not mean that that tool can not be repurposed for use within the private sector.

RADAR was created by the military to better help kill the enemy, but no one objects to the use of RADAR when they are flying.

PS- I'm not justifying the MIC, but it is a fact of life in this country, and for all of the bad it has done, it has also done some pretty good things too.

Que
February 26, 2007, 04:09 PM
I have seen most of the comments and I have tried locating the page that I got the data from, and now, seeing all the data given, it is not surprising that I cannot locate the page. It appears that the data was indeed fake, and I retract it and apologise, however, I shall give a range of places with which you can see that gun crime is very high, and not as low as is tried to be made out.

As for repealing amendments, I do not reside in the USA, I do not know how law work there with regard to repeal and the passing of legislation. I just meant that I think there is enough worldwide legislation to take care of the issue without making it more complex by adding new legislation.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org/pdf/gun_injury.pdf
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm
http://www.gunweek.com/2000/hs062000.html
http://www.nyccouncil.info/pdf_files/newswire/07_07_06_guns_report.pdf
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Iw0ao6Vba6UJ:www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org/pdf/gun_injury.pdf+number+of+firearm+related+deaths+in+new+york&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=uk
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fidc9397.pdf
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/qa.html
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wherfvgn.htm
http://www.cha.state.md.us/olh/pdf/hip/InjuryandFirearms.pdf
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/70ViolentDeath.cfm
http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Print.pdf

I try as far as I can to state fact, but like most people, I am guided only by the research I do. Unfortunately, not all statistics are available to the public.

Again, I apologise for that statistic, but it is one I definitly found, or I would not have quoted it.

EDIT: I do not think banning guns is a solution! I think it can cause problems, not solve them.

Guns were made to kill... that is fact. Just because a person shoots a piece of paper or a clay pigeon does not stop it being used for its original purpose!

Hunting with knives... bows and arrows were used with traps and poison... not knives. Do you honestly see a person hunting with a knife?

Hokkmike
February 26, 2007, 04:15 PM
It is the potential that guns have that makes them useful as tools for self defense even if they NEVER have to be used.

There are lots of things shooters fire at that don't die!

hankdatank1362
February 26, 2007, 04:19 PM
have led sheltered, trivial lives in which social ostracism is the ultimate in negative consequences for ones actions, real or perceived.

That is possibly the most brilliant, succinctly stated description of antis, and liberal activists altogether, that I have ever had the pleasure of hearing.

Plus, it sounds so much more grown-up than when I shake my fist at them and yell "Damned Hippie!"

I'm 22 years old - that phrase most accurately depicts the majority of people in my so-called "peer group", unfortunately. I live in the south, so it's not all bad. I can only imagine what a northern college must be like.

Back on topic:

Of course guns were made for killing. I wouldn't own a gun that couldn't kill something. (Even a .22LR can kill, esp. small game) They might serve other, more entertaining purposes, but firearms in general were made to kill. Let's not give the anti's some feel-good rhetoric about "my gun is only for target shooting" so they can try to ban everything else. Just be man (or woman) enough in your convictions to look your accuser straight in the face and say "Yes. My guns were made to injure and kill. If someone has the misfortune to threaten me or my family, they will find out just how well my firearms do what they were made to do."

If they don't like it, tell 'em to go pound sand.

I'm reminded of the story about the old lady, noticing a cocked-and-locked 1911 on a Texas Ranger's hip, and she asked "Oh my! Isn't that dangerous?"

His response: "Why yes ma'am it is dangerous. I wouldn't carry the SOB if it weren't dangerous."

Titan6
February 26, 2007, 04:22 PM
Maybe in some country is it... certainly not here. That would be about 600,000 fatal shootings a year in the US alone. Even in all the wars that we have fought the rate is not that high even in the middle of the combat zone. Before you post you might want to run the common sense detector over your postings.

Que
February 26, 2007, 04:22 PM
A clue about what exactly?

You lot are so blinkered by trying to justify firearms that you are blinded by everything else!

It is a well known that any person that tries to self-justify or to justify what they believe already shows that they are in the wrong, for if what they were doing was in the right - it would be justified in itself!

I do not need to justify myself to anyone... Everyone here that tries to justify a firearm's purpose as not being for killing are trying to justify owning one! Why no be honest and say you want one for wanting one?

I want a firearm because I want one! I dont need a specific reason.

Further, I never once said they should be banned, nor did I say that people should not have them. I think you need to re-read what I wrote and see what I was saying as a whole rather than to pick individual statements and take them out of the context of the whole.

By all means, own a firearm, I am not saying give it up or that they should be banned.

Get some comprehension on what I wrote!

Que
February 26, 2007, 04:24 PM
The statistic was about deaths in the USA. If I could locate it I would post it! Simple as.

hankdatank1362
February 26, 2007, 04:37 PM
Que, you mean to say homicides, not deaths. And it's still less than 92%.


You are trying to make a valid point, but there are some language issues here.

I think I understand you, and I agree. Don't try to justify your logic for owning a firearm to anyone else... it's none of their business. I know that I am fully within the boundaries of the law in whatever I am doing... beyond that, I owe an explanation to nobody.

I'm glad that there's people that don't own guns in America. It gives the criminals someone else to rob and kill.

Que
February 26, 2007, 04:40 PM
Thank you for the welcome.

That is not a contradiction at all... the USA inter alia other states, signed up to the UN resolution about firearms... but this is ineffective as its a voluntary thing and that not every country keeps a record of guns... it is also known that guns supplied by CIA in Vietnam that were missing turned up recently...

This does not hold well for gun control.

Que
February 26, 2007, 04:43 PM
Owning a firearm does not prevent you from being killed by a criminal.. I am sure that if a person, any person, wanted to harm you, they could do it from a kilometer away, and you would not be the wiser as to who was responsible.

Owning or not owning a firearm does not prevent you from being robbed... it just makes it easier for a person to shoot you with your own firearm.

Que
February 26, 2007, 04:51 PM
What do you think the effect is of of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons?

Baba Louie
February 26, 2007, 04:52 PM
...it just makes it easier for a person to shoot you with your own firearm. How's he going to do that if it's on my person? Take it away from me easily? Or should I fight back using it for self defense?
Couldn't he just as easily kill me with a rock in his hand? Or a Baseball bat? Or his hands and feet? Or any other tool at hand?

Baba Louie
February 26, 2007, 04:55 PM
What do you think the effect is of of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons?Ineffective. I think disarming the law abiding only sets them up to be harmed by machete wielding bad guys or their own government

Que
February 26, 2007, 04:55 PM
How many people are shot with their own weapons? :what:

hankdatank1362
February 26, 2007, 05:04 PM
You're seriously beginning to reek of troll.

And if someone wants to kill me with my own gun, they'll have to beat me to death with it, cause it'll damn sure be empty before they get their paws on it!

SuperNaut
February 26, 2007, 05:06 PM
How many people are shot with their own weapons?

You've been given sources to many stats, check them.

MD_Willington
February 26, 2007, 05:41 PM
..Mine must be broken then, all they do is act a a platform for an encased projectile...which in turn puts holes in non living things, no wonder I got them cheap, they're defective.

Derby FALs
February 26, 2007, 06:21 PM
What do you think the effect is of of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons?

It gets innocents killed.

carterbeauford
February 26, 2007, 07:11 PM
damn right my 1911 was designed to kill, I don't carry it to start a friendly conversation on John M. Browning's merits as a gunmaker when someone tries to rape/rob/kill me.

Hairpin M'berg870
February 26, 2007, 07:18 PM
While I cant argue that some guns aren't really that good for anything but killing, you have to keep in mind that a gun itself is not going to kill anyone. Somebodys gotta pull the trigger first. I saw on the news where a woman stabbed her husband to death with a spoon, but the brady bunch has yet to require a license to possess silverware. It's really more of a question of the gun's user whether a gun is "made" for killing. But if I could eat my cereal out of a hollowpoint I would!!! :)

"Gun's dont kill people. People kill people with guns."

bogie
February 26, 2007, 07:31 PM
Tell ya what... You need to get rid of steak knives and ball-peen hammers too.

Why?

If you were ever trying a little field-expedient kitchen repair involving smacking the back of the steak knife with the ball peen hammer, while in an awkward, completely non-ergonomic position, you would know why.

But that was my own idiocy, and my own damn fault, altho I 'm sure that most of my neighbors heard the resultant cussing.

Now go pick up a heavy inanimate object, say a bowling ball, and drop it on your toe.

Did the bowling ball do it?

And your toe felt just fine until the last quarter inch or so, right?

Where does the fault lie? Could it be that you were STUPID when you paid attention to some moron on the internet who told you to drop a friggin' bowling ball on your toe?

JohnL2
February 26, 2007, 08:08 PM
Hmmm.
Considering my life, I am surprised I wasn't killed by or shot others with a gun.
And some of my extended family grew up with guns all over the house.
Yet everyone is fine.
In my limited time on this earth and in the working world I have come to the realization that there are a great many grown up children out there who don't know how to handle frustration and anger. Maybe it is the way they were raised or just something is wrong with them. Underdeveloped frontal lobes?

rickomatic
February 26, 2007, 08:16 PM
"But guns were MADE for killing"

Answer: "And you sir/madam....are an idiot!" :evil:

But...seriously, the naivate of that statement simply begs for a rebuttel. You MUST make the person making that statement explain to you why they think that way. After they've let out enough rope......hang em with it.

razorburn
February 26, 2007, 08:44 PM
Is a sander made to spin a disk of abrasive material or to sand? Is a saw made to spin a piece of steel with a fragmented edge, or to saw? A sander is made to spin that disk in order to sand and a saw is made to spin that steel in order to saw. You can change what you use that sander or saw for. Maybe you never cut or sand anything with it. You use it as a paperweight, or as a white noise generator. But you can never change the it's original intent of design. I think it's rather sad that so many of our own can't even come to terms with it and try to find abstract ways to deny the reality of what our guns were meant to do.

Sylvan-Forge
February 26, 2007, 09:01 PM
Que,

It's cool that you have shown yourself to not be a troll.
I thought for sure you'd be gone. A pleasent surprise that you are not.
It's good to have participants from around the globe here.


Since you are not from the USA, and I indeed got the cart firmly before the horse, I redact the "contradiction" comment forthwith.

Not that I agree with what has and is happening with arms control ;)



Que said: What do you think the effect is of of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons?
I have some comments for this question after I get some more work done.
....
....

Deanimator
February 26, 2007, 09:25 PM
Owning or not owning a firearm does not prevent you from being robbed... it just makes it easier for a person to shoot you with your own firearm.
Can you cite for me an instance in which this happened to someone other than a policeman attempting to subdue someone with less than lethal force?

If you can, you'll be the first in nearly thirty years of my asking.

I'm betting you can't.

Deanimator
February 26, 2007, 09:29 PM
Tell ya what... You need to get rid of steak knives and ball-peen hammers too.
My god-sister was stabbed to death by her boyfriend.

To hear OSHA for Rapists (anti-gunners) tell it, she's not actually dead since she wasn't shot with a gun. My response: "But how come she never returns phonecalls?"

The truth is they'd rather she bleed to death than shoot the degenerate with the knife in his hand. None of them ever seems to volunteer to support her orphaned child either...

iamkris
February 26, 2007, 11:21 PM
Que

Go forth and read this compilation of firearm facts. It will give you a well-documented set of facts to form your opinions...certainly better than the crap you are picking up at the Brady Campaign site.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

If you have more questions, then come back.

Baba Louie
February 26, 2007, 11:33 PM
Que, let's say for a moment that you (or Sarah Brady) have godlike powers and can rid the world of ALL guns. (should you or she choose)

"POOF" it's done.

All guns gone. No one can use a gun, they don't exist. (Let's all hold hands and join in singing a few rounds of Kum-ba-yah) :p

I'm guess I'm gonna hafta break out my longbow, sword or tomahawk (I already carry a number of pocketknives), or I'm gonna grab my trusty "river-rock-wrapped-to-end-of-stick" warclub (or walking cane), or maybe a bullwhip I own and I'll go about my law abiding business... because you, with your godlike powers, only eliminated all guns, not all evil ner-do-wells; and while I'm getting all old and slow and don't really want to engage in close quarter combat with a younger, stronger, maybe drugged up miscreant to keep his evil self at bay (and I don't even want to think about the fate of weaker females) I guess I'll have to adapt. Or revert. Or devolve. Or suffer.

Maybe I'll just carry a rock or two and a leather sling. Worked for David when he faced Goliath (or so the story goes... with a little help from God). HEY! That sounds like a, a, a GUN! Smaller, weaker w/ weapon in hand, against bigger, badder distant foe (Bet it ruined the Philistine's plans that day).

Hmmm, maybe I can take a steel tube, mix some charcoal, sulphur and saltpeter, melt a little lead... maybe keep the bad guys a little farther away. Oops!

Understand clearly that when a great need appears a great use appears also; when there is a small need there is small use; it is obvious, then, that full use is made of all things at all times according to the necessity thereof. Anon
OK, I concur. Guns can, do, have and will KILL, if the person wielding them so chooses and knows human anatomy. But you know what?"Man is a tool-making animal." Ben Franklin, 1778
I got mine. You got yours? :D

Que
February 26, 2007, 11:45 PM
Please show me where I said that guns should be banned? I seriously do not think I said that at any time, anywhere! If you dont, then please go back and read what I wrote.

Baba Louie
February 26, 2007, 11:47 PM
Mea Culpa Que.

Que
February 26, 2007, 11:50 PM
There are many children shot and killed by there parents weapons, but shot by another child... if a child can do it... how much more then, can an adult take the weapon and shot you?

Que
February 26, 2007, 11:52 PM
Hmmm, I wont even comtemplate rebutting that reply... gunfacts.info... I am almost certain that this is the Brady Campaign site you were referring to...

Que
February 26, 2007, 11:55 PM
Please tell me, without going to check, what does your second amendment say? I am almost certain, some will misquote it... if they are honest, and didnt check it first.

Gator
February 26, 2007, 11:56 PM
Don't be silly, guns are made to save lives, and put food on the table.

Que
February 27, 2007, 12:02 AM
With statements like that, you just really show your intelligence... I didnt say ban weapons, nor did I moan about killing. You really do need to read with greater depth of understanding!

My interest in purely academic, and slanted to illegal trafficking. I am not interested in if you own a gun, or an armoury of guns.

However, if ONE of your weapons are stolen and a kid (or indeed, anyone) dies, I do expect you to be man enough to face the consequences thereof for not locking up your weapon, and for being negligent.

Que
February 27, 2007, 12:03 AM
That is a good use too - but still requires killing...

I am not disputing if the killing is good or bad...

obxned
February 27, 2007, 12:15 AM
Yes, they are made for killing. They are also made for putting food on the table, busting clay birds, target shooting, and just killing a pleasant afternoon plinking cans.

I've owned guns, fed a growing family, won shooting matches, busted a lot of clay birds and tin cans over the last 6 decades, but never have harmed a single person.

Oh, I also have taken my flintlock to school by invitation, so that kids could learn how our forefathers stayed fed, stayed alive, and stayed free.

HonorsDaddy
February 27, 2007, 12:21 AM
Most of us don't have to look up the 2nd Amendment to quote it verbatim:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

27 simple words, written in 18th century English, which essentially distill to "Don't even think about it".

Few other things for you:

1) The gunfacts link you were given has nothing to do with the Brady Campaign, other than to really irritate them :D

2) Many people here likely assume you are anti-gun due to your first post. That one wasn't exactly designed to win friends on a pro-gun board.

3) While i cannot tell you what brought others to their beliefs on RKBA, personally i arrived at my decisions by objectively reviewing the data from both sides. In the process i learned a very interesting and telling fact: The anti-gun position uses few facts, a lot of self-generated statistics, implications, hyperbole, out-of-context quotes, and emotional pleading. The pro-gun side seems to just throw the facts out there and suggests you draw your own conclusions. It has been my experience that people who aren't afraid of the facts, are usually the ones in the right.

HonorsDaddy
February 27, 2007, 12:26 AM
You said

However, if ONE of your weapons are stolen and a kid (or indeed, anyone) dies, I do expect you to be man enough to face the consequences thereof for not locking up your weapon, and for being negligent.

Question: Why should one be held responsible for the negligent and/or criminal actions of another who used his stolen property?

Can you name a single other object you would hold to that standard? Can you name ANY object held to that standard by any government anywhere in the world at any time? I know i sure as hell cant.

If it is stolen from you, it is out of your control. By what possible logic do you conclude that the victim of a theft is somehow liable for misuse of his stolen property? I really would love to know how you wrap your brain around that. Before you respond - substitute "car" for "gun" and tell me if it would make sense.

HonorsDaddy
February 27, 2007, 12:28 AM
You said:

That is a good use too - but still requires killing...

I am not disputing if the killing is good or bad...
If you're not disputing it, why bring it up?

By mentioning it the way you did, the implication is you believe killing is a negative.

Perhaps this is merely a language differential, but in all honesty, i really do not believe so.

Firethorn
February 27, 2007, 12:31 AM
Please tell me, without going to check, what does your second amendment say? I am almost certain, some will misquote it... if they are honest, and didnt check it first.

A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

happy? The italized part took a few moments. I knew I was missing it, it just took a few moments.

Anyways, the only cases that I'm aware of where a criminal took a gun away from a civilian was when the civilian wasn't willing to fire.

Cops, believe it or not, have a worse retention statistic. By percent of encounters they're more likely to be shot with their own weapon than a civilian is to be killed by a criminal who's taken it away from them.

Now, this isn't to degenerate the police; Indeed, their job is far more difficult because they're expected to capture the criminal alive and unharmed as often as possible.

On the other hand, we have the case of an old woman, I can't remember her name at the moment. A man broke into her home, started beating her in a robbery type scenario. But he didn't stop. Somehow she got her hands onto an old revolver. I think it was a .22 or a .32. She shot him five times, including multiple times in the chest. However, he was a big dude, none of the shots were immediatly disabling and it took him 30 minutes to die from blood loss. The entire time he was beating her and trying to take the gun away. In the end it took the paramedics to get the empty gun out of her hand. I'm sure somebody on this board will be able to provide a link to the details.

So where's your story of a criminal taking a gun away from somebody ready to fire?

Mandirigma
February 27, 2007, 01:12 AM
You lot are so blinkered by trying to justify firearms that you are blinded by everything else!

I don't need to justify anything. My Rights allow it. What we do get blinkered about is how people try to take away those rights. We fight to keep those rights. Its definately "If you are not with us, you are against us." Google Jim Zumbo, maybe you'll understand.


There are many children shot and killed by there parents weapons, but shot by another child... if a child can do it... how much more then, can an adult take the weapon and shot you?

You DO realise that for the sake of statistics they use "children" that are aged 18-20 as well correct?


Owning or not owning a firearm does not prevent you from being robbed... it just makes it easier for a person to shoot you with your own firearm.

Only if you are unwilling to defend yourself. Any weapon is a tool of force, Firearms are force multipliers. Or as the saying goes "God created man, Sam colt made them equal."

Hmmm, I wont even comtemplate rebutting that reply... gunfacts.info... I am almost certain that this is the Brady Campaign site you were referring to...

I've seen enough. You'll post
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf

in your list of sources and then go on to knock http://www.gunfacts.info/

Please let us know where you DO reside. It'll help in allowing comparisons as to crime rates and such. No its not to throw insults (though I'm sure some may) Right now the problem is you are listening to essentially propaganda.

Pull the wool from your eyes and stop being one of the sheeple. Our first amendment allows us (and you) to say what you will. If you think that you will change our opinions or do anything but anger us as a whole, YOU may just want to move on to a different forum.

This thread will get locked before too much name calling and anger driven words get out. This is, after all, THE HIGH ROAD.

You're seriously beginning to reek of troll.
I'm starting to get that vibe as well.

ArfinGreebly
February 27, 2007, 01:26 AM
Each of us here on THR has a different history concerning how and why he decided to learn and use firearms.

Some grew up with them, others were trained in the military, some went hunting with a friend, some had something really bad happen to them or to someone they knew.

Some of us just learn more slowly than others.

I am in that last camp.

I grew up in Northern California, and practically everyone I knew either had a gun of their own or got to use their dad's gun for hunting or targets. Over the nearly ten years I lived there, none of the kids got shot, none of the kids (or adults) shot up a school or restaurant.

Guns were just part of life. Just like knives are part of a kid's life in Northern Sweden/Norway/Finland. People mostly used them to get game, kill pests, and protect their orchards, farms, and ranches.

I didn't have a lot of exposure since we didn't have them in the family. I had an air gun or three, but no firearms.

I learned to shoot the AR-15/M16 in military basic training. I never had to use it beyond qualification. I shot well, but it was just holes in paper.

I got out of the service and put guns behind me; that was someone else's job now. I figured the military would protect the country and the police would protect the communities at home. I spent the next ten years doing volunteer work in U.K. and Europe.

I returned to the U.S. after cross-training myself in computer programming.

Somewhere in there I got married three times and had two kids twice.

Once I was permanently back in the U.S. I made new friends. Some of them had guns for one thing or another. I was always a little nervous around people who liked guns and even more so around those who had them. Those who hunted I could understand, but those who just had a weapon for self defense caused me some unease.

This was to be my relationship with guns for the next twenty years.

During this time there were a couple of incidents where people I knew personally were killed or harmed by robbers or thugs. A friend of mine, a dentist, explained to me why, after his wife was murdered, he bought a pistol for his own protection and one for the office -- and had the office staff trained to use it. A woman we knew, and her husband, bought large revolvers after she was assaulted.

It's hard to tell someone who has been directly victimized that they're being paranoid.

When, eventually, we moved to an area where hunting was popular and people were at ease with guns, I finally decided I should learn more.

Over the next year and a half I did research, read laws, asked questions of those more experienced than I. In this process I learned that almost all of my misgivings about guns had been based on denied information and false information from people who intend the complete disarmament of the U.S. citizens.

More than a year. Not a week. Not one evening online. More than a year. That's a lot of reading. That's a lot of questions. That's a lot of listening.

If you truly care about the answers to the questions you have posed, you will spend more than a few evenings online asking tired questions of people who hear those same questions asked daily by dishonest or ignorant people who mean harm or who can't be bothered to do their own research.

The people who founded the United States established its constitution, but couldn't get it ratified without certain amendments. These amendments enshrined certain recognized individual human rights, and forbade government from abridging, encroaching, or infringing them.

The Second Amendment was not a casual "good idea" the make the population "feel good" about the constitution. It was drafted and re-drafted until a wording was found that would make it clear that individuals should be armed and that government shall never disarm them.

Over the more than 200 years since, their wisdom has been demonstrated repeatedly as the peoples of other countries have been disarmed and then systematically exterminated.

Those who believe in socialism, despite its repeated failures all over the globe, believe that prosperity can only be attained by stealing the wealth created by free enterprise and forcibly re-distributing it. They are convinced that if they just get the chance to convert the United States to socialism they will finally succeed.

They just know that if they keep doing the same thing that has always failed before that they will succeed with it here.

Forcibly taking the wealth of a society that's armed will be met with force. This is very inconvenient, so they must first disarm the target society.

They are tireless. They are relentless. They have no scruples. They care not about the truth of their arguments. This is a religious quest to them, and anything at all that must be done is justified by the goal they mean to reach.

I didn't realize this for most of my life. I had to dig for it.

I eventually came to know:
guns are necessary to keep the freedoms of this nation;
guns are necessary to protect one's person and property from thieves, robbers, rapists, and murders;
guns are very useful in keeping down the ravages of certain pests;
guns are excellent recreation.

Guns are independence. Guns are freedom.

I worked hard for this knowledge.

I finally overcame my own fears and, after careful review, was able to choose the weapons most suitable for my self and my family.

It is easy to sit back at a distance, uninvolved, and ask academic questions from a plausible viewpoint.

It's more work to study the subject and learn real history and learn real statistics and learn the real mechanics of firearms.

I invite you to approach the subject with the seriousness that I, myself, did.

Many here know far more than I. Many here will be happy to provide guidance.

I invite you to walk this road to enlightenment.

There is much to know.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 27, 2007, 01:34 AM
Addressing the "but guns are made for killing and killing is bad" argument with an anti, or even an ignorant but not really anti person is the heart of the matter. An anti has made up their mind that guns are bad, and so is all killing. For them to realize this is wrong would take a fundamental shift if how they view a lot of things. It's a big leap for a mind to make.

Axman
February 27, 2007, 01:59 AM
Some guns are made for launching plastic pellets, some for attaching price stickers to the top of a canned food item, some for flinging rubber bands, some for checking the speed of passing motorists, some for spraying a fine stream of water. So it's not true, all guns are not made for killing!!!:neener:

Mandirigma
February 27, 2007, 02:11 AM
Well said, ArfinGreebly, well said.

QuickRick
February 27, 2007, 04:19 AM
IMHO the best counter to this is to play the percentages. How are guns used for killing? Via shooting with BULLETS OR SHOTSHELLS is the obvious answer. How many rounds of ammo (all calibers and gauges) are fired world wide each year? This may require a little research on your part but certainly hundreds of billions of rounds (probably into the trillions). How many of those rounds are used to kill people? For arguments sake lets say 5 million (probably a high estimate). What percentage of 500 Billion is 5 million? I ran out of digits on my calculator but I believe it's .001 % that is one thousanth of 1%. Thus if we accept these percentages as PROOF that "guns were MADE for killing" then we must accept the fact that ice picks, rope, knives, automobiles, alcohol, prescription drugs, vaccinations, human hands, etc were all MADE for killing.

Que
February 27, 2007, 06:26 AM
I read your reply... and you are making assumptions based on something I did not write.

1/. I do not and never did say I supported the disarmament or banning or removal of weapons - please point out where I said this?

2/. You are assuming I never owned a weapon, which I did, for a long time, I sold due to moving to country where the right to bear arms does not exist.

3/. You raise these points:

guns are necessary to keep the freedoms of this nation;
guns are necessary to protect one's person and property from thieves, robbers, rapists, and murders;
guns are very useful in keeping down the ravages of certain pests;
guns are excellent recreation.

I do not disagree with any of these points, nor did I say I did.

My intial post was simply that Guns were made for killing. What you or anyone does as an individual soley up to them. The gun does not need to be used to kill... however, a number have remarked that it is for self-protection... surely this alludes to killing? Because if you have time enough to wound, you have time enough to stop the person another way!

I love firearms, I always have. I am not campaigning to get them banned or removed or any of the like, no what any has written of me or perceived of me. They have perceived wrong. Research... I probably do more research than most people I know.

Que
February 27, 2007, 06:38 AM
May I ask you to actually go back and read my intial post? Because I can see that from your reply, you have not read what I actually wrote!

You mentioned about the bradycampaign.... well, go look on gun facts - if you check you will see that this site does not qualify as authoritative at all... but I am not disputing that... you raised brady... if you check, all the facts are sourced, and you can check them... I have seen those facts on a number of official sites... so be sure of what you write first.

As for threatening me with anger and post locking - this serves only to show that what I am writing is truth, or you would not reply in this way.

A scenario: Bill* and Bob* (*fictitious names)

Bill goes to Bob's house, and states to Bob, "I hear you are a wife-beater, Bob!" Bob replies by taking Bill outside, and promptly beating him up... Everyone in the street heard the accusation, and has seen Bob beat up Bill. The action of Bob has served only to add feul to fire and show that he is exactly what Bill said he was...

In the same way, your threatss of anger, and post locking are essentially the same, and they come AFTER you claim the right of free speech...

I think you need to re-evalutate your stand point.

I never once said I am against you!
I never once said I want guns removed!

Now I am telling you, go back, and show me where I suggested or said either! You wont, I didnt say it. If a site I posted, says it, it is the view of that site.

My initial post was simply, "Guns were invented by people for killing!" It is neither negative nor positive and can be interpreted both ways.

Que
February 27, 2007, 06:41 AM
The woman needed a bigger gun... and I am not against it... unfortunately society has made it to be necessary to bear arms...

If a person is shooting at me, and I shoot them and they die, then they are reaping what they have sewn!

Que
February 27, 2007, 06:46 AM
It was stated (and I checked...) that it says:


"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


However, I was under the impression that there is a part left out... and it should state:


"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a common enemy, shall not be infringed."


When did it change, or indeed, did it ever change? Please, I am genuinely curious...


And I am not a troll... I am not against guns... and public opinion counts... and you have made your views clear... My original statement still stands though... that guns were initially invented for killing... and so were other things, but I am not discussing them... and I do not want people to hand in their weapons, that is foolishness. To stop firearms mannufacture will also put many people out of work and cause major other problems too, I seen what happened in UK when they did that... I disagreed with that move then, and I still do.

Que
February 27, 2007, 06:48 AM
You wrote:
Anyways, the only cases that I'm aware of where a criminal took a gun away from a civilian was when the civilian wasn't willing to fire.

If anyone pulls a weapon of ANY sort, then they should be willing to use it! Or not pull it in the first place!

Que
February 27, 2007, 06:58 AM
Why should one be held responsible for the negligent and/or criminal actions of another who used his stolen property?

Did you read what was written? If the person, call him Jack, has several firearms, and they are not locked up or kept securely, and ONE is stolen from Jack by person or persons unknown, Jack is at this point, guilty of an offence! He has a duty of care to himself, and other people that requires him to ensure that his weapons are secure, and safe. If Jack has not done this, then he is guilty of breaching that duty. The the next part that will need to shown is there causation and/or remoteness. If the person(s) commits a felony act with that weapon, then but for Jack not locking up and securing his weapon, that felony act would not have occurred and Jack is guilty. If that weapon was then used to kill someone, then Jack has a serious offence to answer.

My statement stands... If Jack does not lock up his weapon and it is stolen and a felony act is committed where someone dies as a result of Jack's negligence in not locking up or securing his weapon, then Jack should be held responsible for his negligence, and Jack should be man enough to stand and take account for and responsibility of that negligence. This comes with the territory and right of owning a weapon. Everyone has the right to liberty, life etc... and by Jack not securing his weapon, that has been removed.

Jack, and the person committing the offence are guilty.

Que
February 27, 2007, 07:05 AM
You said: By mentioning it the way you did, the implication is you believe killing is a negative.

The implication comes only by way of your perceptions on how you truly view things. If a man attacks me, or my family, and the only way to stop him is to remove his life, then his life will be removed!

I love guns... I have CZ-75 (not the one I wanted) but it sufficed. I wanted a 1911 .45 or a .44 but now I cannot own either. I live in UK.

Mongo the Mutterer
February 27, 2007, 07:17 AM
Que:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Just like it was written in 1791It may be my imagination but you seem to dismiss "Gun Facts" as a resource, but seem to refer to the Brady bunch as authority.

My Troll sense is tingling...

By the way, the Second Amendment was easy to validate, just Google it. No need to add your own words...

Que
February 27, 2007, 07:29 AM
Oh dear - I cited neither as authoratitive - I said the facts can be validated... and I quote:You mentioned about the bradycampaign.... well, go look on gun facts - if you check you will see that this site does not qualify as authoritative at all... but I am not disputing that... you raised brady... if you check, all the facts are sourced, and you can check them... I have seen those facts on a number of official sites... so be sure of what you write first. No where do I say its authoratitive... please read correctly.

Que
February 27, 2007, 07:31 AM
Please read what I have asked... if you are not going to give me an answer please refrain from answering. Your answer does NOT answer the question! I did NOT put words in, I asked about it.

hankdatank1362
February 27, 2007, 07:50 AM
If the person(s) commits a felony act with that weapon, then but for Jack not locking up and securing his weapon, that felony act would not have occurred and Jack is guilty. If that weapon was then used to kill someone, then Jack has a serious offence to answer.


Wrong... the criminal will just get a weapon some other way and the crime will still occur. Now, if Jack leaves his weapons leaning against trees in his front yard with lots of children around, that's different. But if someone breaks into his home and happens to see one resting on the coffee table, Jack cannot and must not be held liable, because the criminal had no business in his home to begin with. A man's home is his castle, and that means he can do whatever he damn well pleases, including leaving unsecured firearms lying around all over the place with a reasonable expectation of their security.

If someone stole Jack's car because he forgot to lock the door and ran over a small child, would it still be Jack's fault?

Or, more ridiculously, if Jack dropped a pencil, and a criminal picked up the pencil and used it to stab someone in the eye, is Jack still responsible?

In my opinion, that's just as bad as blaming the gun itself.

Mandirigma
February 27, 2007, 08:21 AM
May I ask you to actually go back and read my intial post? Because I can see that from your reply, you have not read what I actually wrote!

Read it, and if YOU'LL note I'm not reply to that. I'm replying to the comments you have on other board members. You want to say that everyone here isn't reading what you are writing. But its looking like you are only reading what you want to.

You mentioned about the bradycampaign.... well, go look on gun facts - if you check you will see that this site does not qualify as authoritative at all... but I am not disputing that... you raised brady... if you check, all the facts are sourced, and you can check them... I have seen those facts on a number of official sites... so be sure of what you write first.

Hmmm, I wont even comtemplate rebutting that reply... gunfacts.info... I am almost certain that this is the Brady Campaign site you were referring to...

I don't need to read through the links you provided. I know they are false, and/or represented in a way to promote the Brady Campaign's agenda. I don't need to post them on a PRO-GUN board.

I posted the two links to show you that you were in error. if you need to, go to register.com and see who owns the sites you posted. The brady campaign would like nothing more than if gunfact.info and the information it represents were to disappear.

As for threatening me with anger and post locking - this serves only to show that what I am writing is truth, or you would not reply in this way.

In the same way, your threatss of anger, and post locking are essentially the same, and they come AFTER you claim the right of free speech...

First off, go back and read EXACTLY what I wrote, never mind I'll quote it myself

Our first amendment allows us (and you) to say what you will. If you think that you will change our opinions or do anything but anger us as a whole, YOU may just want to move on to a different forum.

This thread will get locked before too much name calling and anger driven words get out. This is, after all, THE HIGH ROAD.


What threats? Do you see a "Moderator" under my handle? I am only a member. If you mean what I put into bold and underlined. Well read it again. There is no threat there, its simple fact. I've seen it happen. I've seen threads getting locked for being off topic, which is where I see this one going.

And since you bring up the First Amendment. It only protects against the Government procescution. It is not a shield to protect you from what citizens may do. What the moderators choose to do is of thier own opinions.

I think you need to re-evalutate your stand point.

I never once said I am against you!
I never once said I want guns removed!

Now I am telling you, go back, and show me where I suggested or said either! You wont, I didnt say it. If a site I posted, says it, it is the view of that site.

My initial post was simply, "Guns were invented by people for killing!" It is neither negative nor positive and can be interpreted both ways.

There's no need for me to re-evaluate anything. I know who I am, and I know where I stand.


There has been no sound argument to refute the original intent of a gun... unlike any other weapon, its sole purpose was for killing, be that in self-defence, murder, war or hunting!

This is not to say they should be banned... because banning them would not be a solution, it will just make the problem change colour... What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation.

And here in lie the rub. You may have not come out and directly type the words I am against you but your little bit in the bold. Thats what everyone here is working against.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ban

Main Entry: 1ban
Pronunciation: 'ban
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): banned; ban·ning
Etymology: Middle English bannen to summon, curse, from Old English bannan to summon; akin to Old High German bannan to command, Latin fari to speak, Greek phanai to say, phOnE sound, voice
transitive verb
1 archaic : CURSE
2 : to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>
3 : BAR 3c <banned from the U.N.>
intransitive verb, archaic : to utter curses or maledictions

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/control

Main Entry: 1con·trol
Pronunciation: k&n-'trOl
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·trolled; con·trol·ling
Etymology: Middle English countrollen, from Anglo-French contrerouler, from contreroule copy of an account, audit, from Medieval Latin contrarotulus, from Latin contra- + Medieval Latin rotulus roll -- more at ROLL
transitive verb
1 a archaic : to check, test, or verify by evidence or experiments b : to incorporate suitable controls in <a controlled experiment>
2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE b : to have power over : RULE c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels <control an insect population> <control a disease>
intransitive verb : to incorporate controls in an experiment or study -- used with for <control for socioeconomic differences>
synonym see CONDUCT
- con·trol·la·bil·i·ty /-"trO-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- con·trol·la·ble /-'trO-l&-b&l/ adjective
- con·trol·ment /-'trOl-m&nt/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/legislation

Main Entry: leg·is·la·tion
Pronunciation: "le-j&s-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the action of legislating; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization
2 : the enactments of a legislator or a legislative body
3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body


I haven't seen anyone refute what the original intent of guns were we are all on the same page here.

Here is the deal. A good percentage of the board members are highly educated (of which I'm not, I'm just a dumb grunt) We are used to not only reading what is written, but also interperating whats implied. Whats implied in that last post is that you do, in fact, want to control and legislate my gun rights. Read the BOLD portions.


Instead of answer questions directed at you, you go on to attack the person questioning you. With what boils down to "I didn't say that, where did I say that?" Well now its on you.






However, I was under the impression that there is a part left out... and it should state:

Quote:
"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a common enemy, shall not be infringed."

When did it change, or indeed, did it ever change? Please, I am genuinely curious...


The Second Amendment was not a casual "good idea" the make the population "feel good" about the constitution. It was drafted and re-drafted until a wording was found that would make it clear that individuals should be armed and that government shall never disarm them.

Once it was ratified it never changed.

Mandirigma
February 27, 2007, 08:38 AM
Please read what I have asked... if you are not going to give me an answer please refrain from answering. Your answer does NOT answer the question! I did NOT put words in, I asked about it.

State your source, show us where you found what you were under the impression. Since you didn't put it in who did?

However, I was under the impression that there is a part left out... and it should state:

Quote:
"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a common enemy, shall not be infringed."

When did it change, or indeed, did it ever change? Please, I am genuinely curious...

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_downloads.html

Hard to read but there it is.

Que
February 27, 2007, 09:22 AM
I do not think that you are a "dumb grunt".

I dont have a source, that is why I was asking about it. I just wanted to know, as I had heard it... and I was not making claims - it was a serious question, and it really has not been answered, but yet it has. I just wanted to know if those extra words were ever in it, and apparantly they are not, and never were. Then that issue has been resolved. I was merely asking a question to gain some understanding.

Yes I wrote "Hmmm, I wont even comtemplate rebutting that reply... gunfacts.info... I am almost certain that this is the Brady Campaign site you were referring to..." However, this was a sarcastic comment.

My quote "What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation." and your reply "And here in lie the rub. You may have not come out and directly type the words I am against you but your little bit in the bold. Thats what everyone here is working against." This is not really aimed at legal gun owners at all - it aimed more at illegal trade, arms traffickers, and the like. I should have been more clear on that from the start.

rmmoore
February 27, 2007, 09:36 AM
Good points all. As Hankdatank states (very well I might add), what I do in my home (and/or property-?) is my business. It is not the Governments responsibility to regulate my activities if I am not threatening the public safety (although they seem to assume so at every turn). Please note, I said PUBLIC safety. That is fundamentally what law enforcement is for, protecting/maintaining the public safety in a general sense. They DO NOT have a responsibility to personally protect ME or my family. That, is MY job!!!!!! That is one of the beautiful things about living in the USA, my business is mine.
Que, research the Castle Doctrine. Simply stated, my home is my castle and therefore I may protect it and its occupants as well as any extension thereof as necessary. "As necessary" opens a new world for some folks, although probably not for most members here!!! If someone breaks into my home and steals a gun, they are already criminals before they leave. Why therefore, do you take the position I am now somehow liable for their misuse of my stolen property???? Was there negligence? Depends on a variety of circumstances, but making a blanket statement that someone is automatically guilty assumes you are omnipotent and know all about everything, which I am just guessing here guys, but you probably are not. I am certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I believe you are taking a position that most of us "gun folks" in THIS country oppose. We all see how well the banning and "global control" of firearms has worked in the UK (your country as stated), Australia, Russia, China, and the list goes on and on and on.
The original question of guns being designed to kill, once again makes the assumption that the questioner has total knowledge and an all seeing/understanding interpretation of the issue. Assumption is the mother of all @#$%-ups. Many arguments have been made to refute this claim.
Kill? Kill what? Is feeding my family evil? I think you get the point. I have "killed" many animals for food as did my father, and his father, and his father, ect. We've been around here for a long, long time. Are we then evil? At the risk of sounding PC, I prefer to think of this as harvesting, not killing. My issue not yours. Guns are TOOLS, made for a pupose. This purpose has many colors. It is up to the user to pick one of the multitude and use it. ANYTHING can be misused and made into a killing instrument. Some are simply put, more efficient than others.
How about this: we "globally" get rid of EVERYTHING that can kill, because we take the position that if it can kill, then it was meant to. In our new found caveman utopia, there is no more killing, right? WRONG!!!!!!!! As long as man walks the face of the earth, there will be killing as there always has been. Sticks, stones, guns, water (yes water, ever heard of murder by drowning). It DOES NOT matter. Man is the inherent problem in the formula, not the tool. If however, you disarm the entire planet, you have now made it easier for governments to continue the mass murder of innocents. And they WILL. See the above mentioned governments for a partial list. The United States is one of the last remaining places on earth where one has even a basic ability to remain free and safe. It is my contention that ANYONE who attempts to remove that God given right from me, is my enemy and therefore we shall fight until one of us is no longer a threat. Define "stop the threat". I have my definition, do you? Have a nice day everyone :D .

Titan6
February 27, 2007, 09:45 AM
Lets see what ever could he have done to inflame people?:

1. Added words to the second ammendment and then said he didn't.

2. Advocated worldwide gun control and then said he didn't.

3. Claimed that lawful gun owners were responsible for third party acts of criminals and then claimed he didn't.

4. Made up a bunch of statistics and then claimed he didn't.

5. Claims repeatedly he is not a troll but actually is.

If it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, smells like a troll, than it is a troll...

Let us send Mr. Que and his multiple posts back to the bradys where he absolutely did not come from I am sure..... And deny him the immense pleasure his illogical and dishonest arguments that serve to inflame the senses of everyone who is everything he is not.

1911Tuner
February 27, 2007, 09:49 AM
Que wrote:

>What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation." and your reply "And here in lie the rub.<
**************

The "rub." Exactly so. The problem with putting anything under "Global Control" is that it denies the sovereignty of the United States in deciding
what is good for their own, and places that same "control" in the hands of the UN, which...as we have thus far seen...is a pretty corrupt organization. Their hidden agenda may be likened to a Cockroach infestation. For every one that you see, there are a thousand that you don't see.

So...Other nations and leaders may feel comfortable in letting a "World Court" decide their respective fates...but Americans, as a whole, are decidedly not.
We tend to view anyone who would be so arrogant to presume that we neeed to be controlled with deep suspicion and resentment. Resisting control by committee is something that we have done very well in the past, and will continue to do so. It's a fine, old American tradition. You should try it sometime.

Finally...for the record...Even suggesting to most Americans that global control over ANY aspect of our lives isn't likely to win you any friends here, nor will it earn you very much civility in the progression of this thread. As I noted earlier...Man was designed to kill. The means at his disposal are limitless, and the only way to stop man from killing is to control men. Good luck on that. Homo Homilia Lupus. It's the nature of the beast...but the most dangerous wolf in the forest is the one who would rule all wolves...even those not in his pack. And there, my young friends...is the real rub.

The issue is not gun control. The issue is people control. As long as people have the means to reisist, absolute control can never be achieved. Power is the great seducer. Power is the great corrupter. And power...is the end game for the ones who would rule. So, while the corrupt among our politicos may well hand over our sovereignty one day...they probably shouldn't expect that it will be well met by the average American. I, for one...will NOT be controlled by a foreign entity...and don't care a damn who isn't comfortable with that notion. You may be comfortable with the prospect of global control over your possessions, and I wish you great peace and much prosperity in Shangri-La. Me? I'm a free man. I'll stick to it.

As a wise man noted:

"They may promise to govern well, but they mean to govern.
And, they may promise to be GOOD masters...but they mean to be masters."

Titan6
February 27, 2007, 09:54 AM
0)

Mongo the Mutterer
February 27, 2007, 11:57 AM
I put the troll hook out first... :evil:

Titan6
February 27, 2007, 12:02 PM
:)

Mongo the Mutterer
February 27, 2007, 12:10 PM
Mongo don't want AK ... they are scawwwy...

Anyway already have a few....

An AR would be nice, however...

hankdatank1362
February 27, 2007, 12:21 PM
It's a shame that some troll is probably going to get this otherwise very interesting thread locked.

Baba Louie
February 27, 2007, 01:07 PM
If Jack does not lock up his weapon and it is stolen and a felony act is committed where someone dies as a result of Jack's negligence in not locking up or securing his weapon, then Jack should be held responsible for his negligence, and Jack should be man enough to stand and take account for and responsibility of that negligence. This comes with the territory and right of owning a weapon. Everyone has the right to liberty, life etc... and by Jack not securing his weapon, that has been removed.

Jack, and the person committing the offence are guilty.Que, Firearms have been stolen from locked homes or places of business which were broken into by criminals. Firearms have been stolen from locked safes within locked houses or places of business when broken into by criminals.
If Jack does not lock up his weapon...

At what level does one, or should I say, "You, Que", stop spreading the blame/negligence from the initial victim (my firearm was stolen, a willful act by another) to use of same by a criminal who had to add cartridges (a second willful act) and then commit a felony?

Some have taken the spread of blame so far as to go back to the firearms mfgs... or they tried to do so in lawsuits... most, if not each, defeated in court by some judge who could and did actually apply logic... which I fail to see in your above quote.

Perhaps your logic might be applied towards the actions of a gunowner who has firearms in the same house as children and does not secure them. Should my child gain access to an "unlocked and loaded" firearm and harm himself or another through no willful act or criminal behavior on his part, just plain old stupidity or carelessness or thoughtlessness on the part of each party.
I grew up in a house where firearms were kept under parent's bed, in parent's closet, down in father's basement workshop. Any ammunition was kept locked up, but I knew where it was, I knew where the keys were kept, I had access to everything if I so chose.

And yet, back then (early 60's) this was not uncommon.
Why do we need your law, your spreading of blame for criminal action, your desire to punish someone for the actions of another? Will it stop criminal activity and if so, how? Will it add to the prison population and require more governmental control of yet another human being who was doing pretty well until his home got robbed/burglarized and old Que's law of spreading the blame around came up?

Pray tell?

Oh, regarding the 2nd... Read the exact wording the Madison wrote and offered to the House of Representatives, read the language they approved and then read what came out of the Senate to be ratified and accepted. A few words dropped here and there to simplify meaning... only to mystify some lawyers, judges and hoplophobes in the mid to late 20th century.

Well, not really mystify, they each tend to make money somehow off their (ahem) newfound understanding of common sense words drafted oh so long ago. Gotta pay the bills ya know?

marcodelat
February 27, 2007, 01:44 PM
Que,

I don't post here much... just read... and learn.

learn this, Que: I am an AMERICAN

1) I own a pistol because I want to own a pistol.
2) I like owning a pistol.
3) I have a right to (presently) own a pistol.

No other reason... needed or given. Period!
- Bye Que.

Deanimator
February 27, 2007, 02:48 PM
There are many children shot and killed by there parents weapons, but shot by another child... if a child can do it... how much more then, can an adult take the weapon and shot you?

"Many"? Really? HOW many?

More than drown in plastic buckets?

Just HOW is someone going to TAKE my weapon, especially since I consider that as an automatic cue for me to SHOOT them with it?

Do you perhaps instead mean "steal"? If so, do you imagine that I'll stand around tapping my foot impatiently while they try to get into the safe?

Your knowledge of firearms, self-defense AND physical security seem equally ephemeral...

izmarkie
February 27, 2007, 02:55 PM
Killing isn't wrong. Murder is wrong.

ArfinGreebly
February 27, 2007, 03:28 PM
Que, dude, your discussion is not honest.

I went back and re-read everything you posted prior to my own post.

1/. I do not and never did say I supported the disarmament or banning or removal of weapons - please point out where I said this?
So what? Since I never said you did, and never implied you did, you have stood up a straw man. You seem fond of telling people to "read what I wrote" as you chastise them for "misunderstanding" you. I went over my post, and I can guess which paragraph you mis-read to create your straw man, but since I never said you supported disarmament, I'm certainly not going to argue that point.

You DID, however, say this:
This is not to say they should be banned... because banning them would not be a solution, it will just make the problem change colour... What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation.
The proposal of . . . global control over them . . . is as sure a way to get all guns banned as there is. It is well known that the U.N. is actively working to disarm -- globally -- the common man, leaving weapons in the hands of police and militaries. This is the recipe for genocide and mass exterminations.

So, no, you didn't say the word "banned" or "disarmament" but instead framed the same outcome by suggesting that a world body committed to the disarmament of all citizens be allowed to "control" the guns. Not terribly subtle.

2/. You are assuming I never owned a weapon, which I did, for a long time, I sold due to moving to country where the right to bear arms does not exist.
Funny, you went out of your way to create the impression that you were new to, or unfamiliar with, guns and the culture surrounding their ownership.

Your first post didn't mention that you'd ever owned guns, nor that you liked them, nor that you had any familiarity with them. You further asserted that
no amount of legislation will ever curb man's desire to kill
which is true, inasmuch as legislation will never curb any desire of any kind, but it implies that man is a bloodthirsty animal. You, personally, may have that problem. I don't, and the vast majority of people of my acquaintance don't. Another straw man.

By the way, you also assert:
the USA inter alia other states, signed up to the UN resolution about firearms
which contradicts other reports on the matter.

Finally this:
3/. You raise these points:
guns are necessary to keep the freedoms of this nation;
guns are necessary to protect one's person and property from thieves, robbers, rapists, and murders;
guns are very useful in keeping down the ravages of certain pests;
guns are excellent recreation.

I do not disagree with any of these points, nor did I say I did.
And . . . ? I was stating that these were things I learned.

For someone who insists that others "get some comprehension" you exhibit a marked tendency toward "willful misunderstanding" of what others write.

My intial post was simply that Guns were made for killing. What you or anyone does as an individual soley up to them. The gun does not need to be used to kill... however, a number have remarked that it is for self-protection... surely this alludes to killing? Because if you have time enough to wound, you have time enough to stop the person another way!
Two things:
1) Guns were made for killing. Simply a statement of the obvious.
2) If you think that "to wound" is a valid method of stopping a threat, then you have not done enough research nor had legitimate self defense training.

I love firearms, I always have. I am not campaigning to get them banned or removed or any of the like, no what any has written of me or perceived of me. They have perceived wrong. Research... I probably do more research than most people I know.
Very, very odd that you would take such pains to leave this piece of information out in your first four posts.

From the phrasing of your posts, it seems you have some moral objection to killing. Although you don't say so, it seems you object to the killing of anyone at all. Perhaps this is incorrect, but your continued emphasis on "guns are made for killing" would create that impression.

On the other side of this coin, you would propose the "global control" of all guns. The only body with any kind of "global" standing is the U.N. which is committed to disarming society completely -- except for police/military. History -- even recent history -- has demonstrated that disarmament is a prelude to mass exterminations.

This presents an interesting dichotomy: if you do, indeed, object to killing, then you would never propose the kind of global control that is guaranteed to result in killing on a scale never seen before on this planet.

It is possible that you simply have a problem articulating your ideas well, and just imagine that people will correctly conclude your personal viewpoints without your ever having to introduce yourself and/or establish your views plainly for those in the discussion.

However, I have noticed that your writing style has changed, and your phrasings have altered. I notice that you withhold enough information to lure someone into making a statement "assuming" your experience and viewpoint, and then you trot this information out as "evidence" that the other guy somehow isn't paying attention or is somehow lacking comprehension.

This is a dishonest form of argumentation.

I would point out that I have never called you an ass.

Now, why would I say that? Well, I could be trying to assert that you somehow said that I made that claim.

You never said that I called you an ass.

I find that highly suspicious. Why would you fail to claim that I called you an ass, when it's obvious that I could have meant it?

If you are so perceptive, and the rest of us are so lacking in comprehension, I fail to understand how you could have missed such an obvious inferred and unspoken/unwritten insult.

You know nothing of my background, so how do you KNOW I'm not a racist?

How can you be certain I don't think you're an ass?

I would suggest that you either A) rapidly get yourself oriented and stop behaving like a troll, or B) seriously consider whether I should call you an ass.

1911Tuner
February 27, 2007, 03:44 PM
Gonna shut this one down for the time being. If the mod who has jurisdiction sees a reason to reopen it, it will be reopened.

1911Tuner
February 27, 2007, 04:26 PM
After consulting with Justin, we've decided to let the thread run...for a while longer. Might I remind one and all to keep it civil, and use reasoned, informed argument to address the issues rather than emotion. It's a hot-button topic for most of us...and while we realize that we won't likely change Que's mind...if we make our points in a clear, concise manner, we just might change someone's mind who happens to stumble onto it at a later date.

Gentlemen...Carry on!

ArfinGreebly
February 27, 2007, 06:55 PM
(Nothing to see here . . . move along)

MikePGS
February 27, 2007, 07:32 PM
A gun is essentially a means by which you can multiply your own force. I don't care how strong you are, you probably can't hit someone as hard as a little chunk of lead flying faster than sound waves. Really if you want to get down to it, if your anti gun then your against equal rights because a gun is the ultimate equalizer. If a woman is on the verge of getting raped what would you rather she have, a cell phone she can use to call the police or a loaded pistol that she knows how to shoot well with? And really isn't that the hypothetical womans choice to make and not yours? As many people have already said yes guns are made for killing but sometimes that needs to happen. Noone (or at the least very few people) wants to kill someone for the most part, but i'll tell you this much: If your coming after me and you end up getting shot thats really your own fault.

shield20
February 27, 2007, 07:42 PM
There are many children shot and killed by there parents weapons, but shot by another child... if a child can do it... how much more then, can an adult take the weapon and shot you?

OK - 1st let's get a few FACTS out there:
year 2004: deaths by

Age under 1 : Firearm accident: 1
Ages 1-4: Drowning: 430
----------Homicide/gun: 36
----------Struck: 15
----------Firearm accident: 14
Ages 5-9: Suffocation: 45
----------Homicide/Gun: 45
----------Struck: 21
----------Firearm Accident: 13
Ages 10-14: Homicide/Gun: 139
------------Poisoning: 47
------------Suicde/Gun: 36
------------Firearm accident 35
Ages 15-19: Homicde/Gun: 1578
-------------Falling: 87
------------ Firearm accident 80

Total accidental death by firearm age 0-19: 143
Total accidental death ALL ages: 649 (.6% of all deaths)

Not all that many children, of ANY age dying accidentally by firearm - IT IS A MYTH!!

joab
February 28, 2007, 12:50 AM
A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a common enemy, shall not be infringed.I googled ( a very easy operation) the words as you presented them and got no hits whatsoever
The 92% Statistic...
It appears that the data was indeed fake, and I retract it and apologise...Again, I apologise for that statistic, but it is one I definitly found, or I would not have quoted it.And what does that tell you about the infallibility of the rest of you "statistics"

It is a well known that any person that tries to self-justify or to justify what they believe already shows that they are in the wrong,Yeah a person like that might post erroneous information as fact, without checking his sources, just to prove his point;)

Owning a firearm does not prevent you from being killed by a criminal.. Let me tell you one of my much told tales
A few years ago my 100 pound wife was approached by a suspicious acting man at a local shopping mall, she used her legally owned handgun to ward him off and protect herself and my young son.
Two days later that same man kidnapped raped and brutally murdered an unarmed woman at another local shopping mall. Go tell her that a gun will not prevent her from being killedI am sure that if a person, any person, wanted to harm you, they could do it from a kilometer away, and you would not be the wiser as to who was responsible.Got any of your statistics on how many times that happens per year compared to how many time a firearm is used to defend an innocent, I do

Owning or not owning a firearm does not prevent you from being robbed... it just makes it easier for a person to shoot you with your own firearm.Got another tale for you.
Three years ago my doddling old gray haired daddy was accosted by two men who were trying to rob him. He subdued them with his legally owned handgun. They were tied to several strong armed robberies against unarmed elderly people in the area They got about fifteen years a piece.
Go tell him that a gun will not prevent him from being robbed.

This board is full of personal accounts such as these

How many people are shot with their own weapons?Why don't you give us your stat and a link ?

Please tell me, without going to checkAdmit it, you thought you were going to catch us with our pants down with that common enemy quote didn't you?
Did you hear that the same place that you got the 92% statistic?
Do you honestly see a person hunting with a knife?
Yes, it is not that uncommon.
I have a friend who hunts Russian Boar with a knife, I knew a guy growing uoi that hunted then with a spear, until he missed once
Here's an exercise for you, Google up "Boar Hunt knife" and see how many references you get. It'll be a whole lot more than that common enemy thing will get you.
Knives were not invented to kill, they were invented to skin, to cut, and not to kill..Source of this information?

Bill goes to Bob's house, and states to Bob, "I hear you are a wife-beater, Bob!" Bob replies by taking Bill outside, and promptly beating him up... Everyone in the street heard the accusation, and has seen Bob beat up Bill. The action of Bob has served only to add feul to fire and show that he is exactly what Bill said he was...I don't get the analogy.
Is Bill Bob's wife? If not how does beating him up make Bob a wife beater?
If not then why is Bill in Bob's house making these kinds of accusations and why does he not deserve to be taken outside?

I don't mind someone being against guns or simply for the global control of guns, so much as it irritates me for someone to base their argument on blatant ignorance with no inclination to verify their facts before using them in an argument.

Please note how I addressed each one of you statements without opening a new post, neat trick huh?

ArfinGreebly
March 1, 2007, 02:32 AM
Gosh.

He's gone.

* Sigh *

Mandirigma
March 1, 2007, 03:01 AM
Sorry, I think I dun runned Que off.

I got irked.

Harold Mayo
March 1, 2007, 03:25 AM
Haven't waded through the whole thread but my advice is this: Read Jeff Cooper's "Art of the Rifle". It's late and I don't have the quote in front of me but Cooper states that the (weapon) is a tool and, as a tool or inanimate object, it has no sense of morality...it's neither good nor evil. If an evil man uses a weapon for evil purposes, the weapon is still just a tool extending and enabling the will of the evil man. If a good man uses the weapon, it's used for a good purpose (killing the evil man or providing food).

Yeah, guns are made for killing. It's the morality of the man using them that matters.

Troutman
March 1, 2007, 10:38 AM
Guns are Mans’ creation…… True. Guns are the “tools” of “Man”
It can become interesting how this came about. One would have to do their research on this, though.
Gunpowder was discovered in China…..?...100’s A.D.? Which was used for fireworks (originally)….? Historians/Gun geeks would know better than I.
Some one came along and reinvented its use, to be used in what we know of today, as firearms. Gunpowder has evolved (slowly) through time as well as the hosts and projectiles that are used for these guns.
Man is complex (way of thinking, anyway), unlike other animals on this earth.
(My own opinion) Man has the knowledge to do what an animal cannot…..”Reason”.
Yes, Man kills (like other animals), not only for his own selflessness (whatever that might be), but for food, clothing (animal fur), and protection against his comrades (other animals), as well, for his own preservation (protection against hostilities). Just like other animals.
Whether directly, doing it oneself or indirectly, by someone else doing it for him, that is, when one buys meat in a supermarket, leather shoes, furs and such. Yes, the latter can be taken by other means, than “the gun”, like trapping (traps), slaughter-houses (killing by use of Mans’ other creations).
For some reason, firearms are always targeted as “made for killing”. I guess, its better, than blaming “Man”, itself.
Did you know potassium nitrate is used in gunpowder (black powder)? I didn’t know this! Till, I was “thinking” about it. Guess, one needs a PHD to know this? I don’t have one of those. I’m lucky I can read and write. Potassium nitrate is used in other things, which one may take for granted. Like that tree stomp remover (I didn’t know this either. Good thing, that things you buy have warning labels and ingredients listed) one bought at home depot, to stop tripping over it
Home Depot (Home of the do it yourselfer), among other home improvement outlets, has other interesting things as well. Plumbers’ pipes, mouse traps, drain cleaners, various lines of drill bits, wires of all kind, as well as that black powder. It’s that black powder, that’s sounds dangerous, Ha! These other things “can” be just as dangerous or more. When there is a unity that develops.
Construction people have a term (don’t know what that is either) to fix things, with material they don’t have on hand with objects (material) that was designed for a different purpose in mind. I have seen this done, what ingenious people they are.
I just wonder (thinking), just like that person(s), in china with the discovery of gun powder. If these things (listed above) can be used in the same context as how the gun is? Or, a more effective tool? For whatever, “Man” can be creative enough to think of?
The “gun” is on the lower level of the “made for killing” anthology, to other things that can/could be bought, thought of, created by “Man” for “made for killing”. Controlling the firearms he has made, is the answer? Or would controlling man himself, be it?
For Man… he is “made for killing”, though the use of his own antimony, and the use of his mind. For He is…… among other things, made for killing (if wanted be).
Only “reasoning” will be his guiding light.

hankdatank1362
March 1, 2007, 12:42 PM
Man, I thought Justin would have nixed this thread a long time ago. Kudos to him for letting it run.

But alas, the troll has retreated under the bridge will his billy goats.

ArfinGreebly, you made one of the most eloquent arguments I have ever read. My compliments.

Que
March 2, 2007, 06:56 PM
You all jumped on the band wagon to shoot me down...

I know this is a pro-gun forum, and my intention was not to offend anyone at all in anyway. I am doing research for a topic... that topic is the question I posted earlier.

The topic is "Analyse the effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons."

The stats I saw on a site, and yes I should of referenced them.

I like weapons, and I really do not have any problems with them... my problems lies in the weapons trafficking... and according to MORI, one in three people are affected by gun crime (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/controlarms.shtml)

It is this issue that caused me to state about global enforcement, it is not to remove your rights to carry weapons, and I apologise if that impression was made. I do believe that the current legislation is sufficient, and I do know that USA has lead the way on control and legislation... like in most areas.

Here in UK, there have been many people killed recently by an influx of illegal weapons, and there is not enough being done globally, to curb this issue. I think that most will agree, and it is this illicit dealing that gives legitimate gun owners a bad name...and they need to be dealt with... and I am also sure you are very aware of the irresponsible legitimate owners that shoot at and kill neighbours dogs for no reason, or threaten people with them... (this is my own opinion and no, I have no sources on this at all).

You all gave good answers... and I really am not against weapons or anyone owning one... I am against the illegal trade in them, and that there is not enough being done about it.

If any has genuine stats (gunfacts.info and bradycampaign.org are not good enough - need a government site or DOJ site or something similar) regarding the illegal trade or weapons trafficking or any ideas, please feel free to voice your opinions.

You are all a good bunch of people, thank you all for your thoughts... and contrary to general opinion, I did read much of what was written, and I did present my facts in bad way, and I didnt not give sources, and I should have done that, it was a poor presentation of argument.

I did not and never did run away... I had work to do, and I still do, which is why I have not been here, and why I didnt go into depth to refute or agree with arguments and give sources. I have deadlines to meet :(

I hope that this is all resolved and cleared up now... we can all get along :) it would be good if we could...

BTW...

1/. Which is the more powerful .44 automag or .45?
2/. What guns do you all own?

I had a simple CZ 75. Its not the one I really wanted, but it worked... wanted either heckler koch or sig sauer, and a .44 but seeinf as I am UK I can not have any.

EDIT: Please see this post - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3164840

Mandirigma
March 2, 2007, 07:06 PM
Que, I was going to send you a PM but it seems you have that disabled.

If your intention really is to do research. Start a new thread with everything you listed. As far as I know (haven't searched) there haven't been any threads about "the effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons" Be plain, use clear semantics.

You will find that people on this board will be more than willing to jump on a bandwagon to help you find the information you requested.



I am personally of the opinion that no matter how much you control or legislate something there will always be a demand for it. So long as there are demands and a way to make money on it, there will always be ways to illegally aquire something. Once you get into this aspect of it then it just becomes a cycle of violence.

Que
March 2, 2007, 07:08 PM
They are turned on - I didnt realise they were off.

EDIT: Please see this post http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3164840

1911Tuner
March 2, 2007, 07:33 PM
Que...We understand a little better now, and accept your explanation.

If you're doing research, the first thing to do is separate the wheat from the chaff. The antis' habit thus far has been to spin many of the facts and statistics to make the results lean in their direction. For instance...when factoring gun-related deaths of "children" into the equation...they usually include young men up to the age of 24...and they include gang and drug turf shootings and acts of war into their findings. While such things are tragic...especially when someone not involved in the affair is caught in the wrong place...this factor is clearly the result of illegal activities and should be addressed as a separate argument instead of a blanket to "prove" that guns are killing children by the thousands annually. Make the argument apples to apples, and the numbers drop sharply. As the old saying goes, "There are liars...damn liars...and statisticians." Given enough time an opportunity, a sharp accountant can balance the books in whatever bias that he chooses. The same can be said of statistics and the people who present them.

The second thing that we have to get away from is the term "Gun Crime" and "Gun Violence." It's misleading. Guns can't commit crime, and repeating those phrases only serve to inflame the uninformed. More spin. Crime is crime. The tool used for the act is incidental. Whether your carotid artery is severed by a kitchen knife or a bullet is of no consequence. You bleed out just as fast. ANother propagandist axiom was coined by Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels: (sic) "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth."

Seek the truth, and tell the truth. Seek out the facts and report the facts accurately.

The final point is that...illegal arms trade is going to go on, no matter what laws are enacted. It will continue in the Sudan and it will continue in Chicago and it will continue in small, rural farming communities everywhere. As long as there are people, there will be violent people who would prey on their fellow man. Homo Homilia Lupus. (Man is a wolf to man) And as long as there are such people, decent people will arm themselves for self protection against these predators. (Actually, Wolves are much more honorable than some of the cretins that I've seen, so that Latin phrase is one that they don't deserve.)

It's simply unnatural not to be armed. Look to nature for the truth in that statement. Weapons are everywhere you look. Even the unoffensive Cottontail rabbit will fight given no other alternative. He's run a fox ragged through the brambles...turn at the last second...and kick his eyes out with the long, sharp toenails provided by nature for such things. Those rangy powerful legs aren't just for launching his rocket-propelled getaways. They also serve as a weapon mount.

Simply, being armed is a natural and desireable state in which to exist. Armed and prepared to fend off an attack doesn't leave you at the mercy of the wolf, nor at the discretion of officers responding to a 911 call that they may arrive at too late to do you any good.

Que
March 2, 2007, 07:40 PM
Hi, you wrote... Homo Homilia Lupus. (Man is a wolf to man).

Where did you get this please, it sounds good would liek to put it in what I am doing.

koja48
March 2, 2007, 07:45 PM
My guns are tools . . . I use these various tools for different applications. Some are for target shooting, some for hunting, some solely as a valued collector's piece, others for the defense of my family and myself, should, God forbid, that threat ever arise.

1911Tuner
March 2, 2007, 07:48 PM
Que...It's a Latin phrase, literally translated. My Latin's a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure the straight translation would read: Man, to his fellow man, behaves as a Wolf.

Baba Louie
March 2, 2007, 08:06 PM
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

http://www.sipri.org/

Que, there's a couple of links which may or may not be of assistance in your quest.
Always remember that when something is made illegal, there will always emerge from the murk, a black market for whatever item is being banned and this item will have major impact on future laws... which will in no way stop the flow of illicit trafficking amongst criminals, but only stop the law abiding. Who will in turn become future victims of that which they wish to rid themselves.

ArfinGreebly
March 2, 2007, 08:11 PM
There is a fundamental problem with the premise that legislation solves anything.

Legislation solves nothing. Really.

You can't solve rudeness by making a law that people must be polite.

You can't prevent sex by outlawing sex. People are going to do it. All you will change is when and where and under what conditions.

You can't prevent drinking by outlawing alcohol. You CAN, and they DID, but it didn't work. People are going to drink. All that changes is the source and the venue and the companionship.

You can't prevent murder by outlawing murder. Murder is going to happen anyway. For what it's worth, murder has nearly always been unlawful. What changes over time is the definition of murder and the tools used for it, depending on who's in charge and the culture they've created.

People have been killing each other for all of creation. Even during the most recent "civilized" periods of man, killing one another is so common and ordinary that it's become a cliche. You almost can't write a book or produce a movie without killing as part of the plot.

Sam Colt, those who went before him, and those who have come later, did something unique in human history: he made the weak equal to the strong.

The tradition throughout history is that the strong control and dictate to the weak. With the advent of the personal firearm, the first true equality of force in history was achieved.

The bullies have never been able to accept this. The bullies want control back. The bullies can't extort and steal and control and intimidate if their victims have the ability to fight back with equal force.

Socialism.

Socialism is a utopian-sounding ideology that visits brutality on a population to guarantee equal outcomes regardless of ability (which is seldom equal). It requires force to steal from the able and distribute the wealth they create to those who can't or won't. Socialism, while sounding "ideal" and "fair" for everyone, cannot succeed without forcible confiscation. The most able are punished and the least able rewarded. It is, without doubt, one of the sickest political/economic systems ever cooked up.

It is one of the more popular forms of tyranny.

It is the politics of bullies.

Bullies don't want the masses to have the means to protect their persons or property. Guns make it possible for people to protect what is theirs. Therefore, guns have to go.

Bullies are not necessarily stupid. It isn't a real stretch for them to grasp that you can't TELL people why you're disarming them. Therefore you need a subterfuge of some kind.

Crime.

Everybody can agree that crime is bad. If you can convince them that somehow GUNS are CRIME, then you can get the guns.

All you have to do then is keep redefining what "crime" is, until the very ownership of a gun, at all, is a crime.

Now you have disarmed the population. You have reduced them to committing their crimes with knives, swords, bricks, fire, rope, broken glass, bow & arrow, and other low-tech implements. You have NOT eliminated crime.

You HAVE, however, created a disparity of force, so that when YOUR goons and thugs show up to enforce YOUR laws and decrees, the population will not have any effective means of fighting your tyranny.

If there is one thing that has become clear over the last several decades, it is that gun control is murder.

One population after another has been disarmed and systematically exterminated.

Crime has never been solved by gun control. All you get when you remove guns is crime that is committed with different tools, and a whole set of demographics now unable to defend themselves against bullies and predators. This is not progress.

More gun legislation is not only NOT the answer, it is a COMPLETELY WRONG answer.

The "illegal trafficking" to which you refer only occurs because some thug decided to restrict access to the only effective means of self defense. The NEED for self defense doesn't go away, and the DESIRE to commit crimes doesn't go away, and *presto* you have a black market.

Guns are here to stay. There is no rationally supportable way to eliminate them.

Let's turn our attention instead to criminals. We've always had those. We've always had laws against what they do. We've always had penalties for those crimes.

What's new is this: the concept that the criminal is not really at fault, and shouldn't really be punished, because that would be cruel. So we let them back out on the street, and pretend that we have to restrict access to self defense tools because bad people (whom we've let out onto the streets) might get them.

And, since we can't be sure who's bad, we have to treat everyone as though he is or could be a criminal, until he can prove otherwise, before we allow him to exercise a guaranteed right to own arms.

There's your real insanity: let bad people back out into the general population, don't keep track of them, and instead make everyone else prove he's NOT a criminal.

The answer is just about too simple to be expressed: a) anyone you allow to walk the streets can be trusted to own a gun, b) anyone you can't trust to own a gun doesn't walk the streets.

Guns are not crime. Guns are not bad.

Guns are the only effective way honest people can protect themselves from otherwise stronger predators.

Criminals are bad. Your choices are these: a) fix the criminal so you can trust him, b) kill the criminal so he's no longer a problem, c) house and feed and care for the criminal until he dies.

It only becomes completely crazy when you try (d) and just let someone you know is bad loose into society.

Guns aren't the problem.

Bullies and tyrants are the problem.

Solve the right problem.

Werewolf
March 2, 2007, 09:34 PM
ArfingGreebly for President!

Man you have an exceptionaly realistic grasp on modern society and it's relationship to weapons.

Please don't be insulted by this but have you ever thought of running for public office? If you do and and it's national you'll get this Okie's vote.

1911Tuner
March 2, 2007, 09:34 PM
Arfin...Sounds like me an' you could be brothers from another mother.

Accolades! Well said!

razorburn
March 2, 2007, 09:53 PM
I like weapons, and I really do not have any problems with them... my problems lies in the weapons trafficking... and according to MORI, one in three people are affected by gun crime (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/controlarms.shtml)

That link says 30%, which is not 1 in 3 btw, are affected or know somebody affected. That makes the data extremely poor and unreliable. The same victim can be represented multiple times, because a large number of people have heard of his victimization, or people may have heard things erronously, someone who just lied about having been shot at to sound macho, or the crime could've been something which caused no harm, being criminal simply by possession, or a large number of other things. It also includes South Africa, one of the hottest murder capitals of the world. The sampling of 6 countries is not even close to being large enough to get an accurate estimate of the percentage of people actually victims of gun crime. Just horrible stats all around. Those numbers are just complete garbage. Literally everything important to getting quality statistics was done improperly. Every last thing. They don't provide use with group sizes, st. deviation, modeling or the p value considered low enough to make this assertation like fact. Just horribly inaccurate and specifically created with the goal in mind to be alarmist. If they really wanted reliable stats, they'd simply compare gun crime records to population sizes in a large sampling of countries where this is possible and explain how they come to their conclusion.

sm
March 2, 2007, 11:21 PM
Staff,Moderators

I respectfully ask this post be added to THR Library.

ArfinGreebly ,

I am humbled and most appreciative of your post, thank you!

If you have not sent that into a Newspaper, I would encourage you do so.
If persons ask for permission to reprint on blogs, or in Magazines, please grant it.

I would really hope and like to see those words picked up and posted in Magazines, blogs, mass mailing to elected officials, editors of newspapers...


Respectfully,

Steve

Troutman
March 2, 2007, 11:40 PM
<<It's simply unnatural not to be armed. Look to nature for the truth in that statement. Weapons are everywhere you look.>>

Even anti-gun people can be armed. Not the only thing dangerous (in an office), like a gun.

http://www.doodie.com/anger_management.php?gameid=983&code=EMKGY2X40K&loadedFrames=15231&totalFrames=15231

click on objects in the office.


Relax... It's humor.

.38 Special
March 2, 2007, 11:47 PM
Something like this has probably already been mentioned, but my response is always "Actually, I have a rifle at home that was designed from the ground up to be used by Olympians while shooting at paper targets. Regardless of 'design', however, it does exactly the same thing as any other gun. My target gun can be used to kill people, while the 'deadliest' gun ever made can be shot at targets. So it really boils down to attributing intent to inanimate objects, which is obviously kind of silly."

I think it's a clever and logical line. It doesn't work on hard-core antis any more than anything else, though, which is to say "not at all".

doc2rn
March 3, 2007, 12:31 AM
Guns are just tools. People kill people with guns, knives, poisons, garrottes, and a variety of weapons. Dont blame the tool.

sofltodd
March 3, 2007, 01:09 AM
I have a little different perspective on firearms, guns and weapons as a whole which to me has put an end to the question "guns were made to kill" on the rare occasion that it pops up. As some of you know from my few posts here I compete on a regular basis with submachine guns in Florida and the question asked is usually "why do you need a machine gun?" is often in the same sentence as "why does anyone need a gun they just kill" etc... I am wise enough to know making bold statements backed by pride or contempt fall on deaf ears. Below is my argument and to date it has been successful.

The question
"Why do you need a gun? Guns were made for killing"

My Answer
History is littered with items which were once the most lethal weapons of their time. Likely starting bare human hands and graduating from sharpened bones and rock to the spear and eventually to where we are today with firearms and the nuclear bomb. History is also dotted with the weapons of the past being used for harmless entertainment in the current day. If you have ever thrown a Frisbee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakram), a boomerang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang), shot a bow and arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_bow) or thrown a javelin during track and field in gym class you have held what was once considered and still is a lethal weapon. Their ability to kill still exists but as modern day combat weapons they are obsolete. Firearms are no different and technology will either eclipse them with more lethal weapons or help protect us from all hostile projectiles.

I use my guns for sport and personal defense and I celebrate the gun for what it is, what it has been, and for what it will someday be, another obsolete weapon in the history books. I look forward to the day when firearms are nothing more than historical relics looked at with curiosity and I can play with them unhindered and unabridged by laws or misconception.

Just like the Javelin, Archery , Fencing, and the martial arts, firearms are celebrated in the Olympics (http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/index_uk.asp) in their non lethal form. Likewise Frisbees, Boomerangs, and many other weapons of the past are used every day by people across the globe for harmless entertainment instead of bloodshed. Perhaps the problem isn't guns or any weapon but the way we perceive them. A weapon is only as dangerous as the intent of the person behind it.


The above words are always followed with a polite invitation to the range and often a lot of questions followed with a "hmm I never thought of it that way before".

my 2 cents. Your mileage may vary.

Kill em with kindness,

- Todd

Mandirigma
March 3, 2007, 08:57 AM
ArfinGreebly: Wow, just wow.

Que
March 5, 2007, 05:26 PM
This is about illegal arms...

Small Arms—they cause 90% of civilian casualties (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/SmallArms.asp)

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/smarms.htm
http://www.iansa.org/media/wmd.htm
http://www.cdi.org/adm/1216/

1911Tuner
March 5, 2007, 05:34 PM
Quote:

>Small Arms—they cause 90% of civilian casualties.<
************

Yeah...and sex causes the birth rate to rise...and if the all-knowing UN somehow manages to take'em all, the men bent on killing other men, women, and children will use machetes or spears or clubs, or whatever they can lay hands on. The problem is NOT with the tool. It's with the tool bearer.

Saying that small arms causes casualties is like saying that cars cause drunk driving.

shield20
March 5, 2007, 06:02 PM
Wow - thanks Que - "small arms in war are used to kill people". Who would have guessed! :rolleyes:

Of course, they say...

Small arms include weapons such as

hand guns
pistols
sub-machine guns
mortars
landmines
grenades
light missiles.



Compare that useless data with the FACT that Firearms are only involved in roughly 1.2% of ALL DEATHS in the USA, and we here in the good old USA are doing great! I think the UN should start supporting natural rights like we recognize here in other nations - I bet many must wish they had it so good!

If you enjoyed reading about ""But guns were MADE for killing"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!