It's a civil right -

Status
Not open for further replies.
scrat said:
its sole purpose is to propell an object at a high rate of speed.
Click to expand...

Ugh. That's it's designed function, yeah. But the question at hand isn't "what does a gun do?". The question is "Why does it do it?". What is the purpose of propelling a projectile at high speeds. Killing, destroying, entertaining, all three, whatever. Those are a gun's purpose.

Splitting hairs a bit thin, aren't you? Don't be silly. :rolleyes:


-T.
 
Guns are designed to kill. If I ever need to kill someone, I want to use something designed to kill. I don't want to use something designed to chop vegetables, or get me to the supermarket.
 
that many parts of society have moved beyond those basic functions...
Click to expand...

Well, try this. People like your girlfriend have a two-fold perception problem. Not that it's her fault, exactly, it's easy to absorb this perception from the TV (it's too easy to absorb a warped view of everything from TV, but that's another matter)

One, they perceive that guns are a problem in themselves, which they are not. Malicious or irresponsible use of guns by people can be a problem, though.

Two, they perceive that the above gun problem is a modern problem unique to our age, and it is most certainly not. To illustrate, read the above again substituting "weapon" for gun.

Ever since man has walked the earth in any numbers, weapons in some form have been plentiful. Typically the richer and more powerful people have always had better weapons than the common man, and when that imbalance has been at it's greatest, the common man has suffered for it. The mistaken idea that you can somehow pass a law and eliminate the USE of weapons or cause them to cease to exist is a modern idea, though, however flawed.

Just like other weapons throughout history, guns have proven themselves useful for self defense purposes, and have also been employed to commit malicious acts. They've also passively served as a deterrent to government oppression of common people, just as other weapons have. But to a FAR greater extent, they have been used for various sporting purposes as well.

For a person to say no one should own a gun because it was made for fighting or killing is the same as saying no one should own a sword (no more Fencing), or a bow (no more archery) and maybe no one should study Martial Arts either. There are many more examples. But the biggest problem with it is... the people interested in outlawing guns cannot possibly eliminate violent crime. History has proven it time and again. What they certainly WILL do is take the means of self defense, and a beloved pastime away from millions of people who never hurt anyone. Just because a person chooses to have no means of defending themselves against violent crime doesn't give them the right (in America) to deny everyone else the means... just because.
 
Nope go back to the basic handgun or rifle. its sole purpose is to propell an object at a high rate of speed.
Click to expand...

And why would someone want to propel and object at a high rate of speed? What is a spear's purpose -- hold a sharp metal blade about five feet in front of you?

No, they're both designed for killing. Guns were not invented to give us a fun leisure activity. They were not invented to solve the world's problem of too much hole-free paper.
 
Weapons cannot be evil. If they can have any morality, then they must be good. Weapons can protect the weak from the strong.

I revere weapons, because I abhor violence.

~G. Fink
 
...a gun was not designed to kill...a bow and arrow is designed to propel an arrow at an above average speed. its not designed to kill.
Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon! We all know EXACTLY what guns are designed to do - and we don't need to apologize to anybody for desiring to lawfully practice with, carry, and if necessary, use them to stop a violent criminal in the commission of an assault against us or our loved ones. Why beat around the bush at all?

Self defense is a civil right, as the OP pointed out. Stopping a criminal assault is a GOOD thing. Having a tool to effectively accomplish that task is a GOOD thing.
 
Guns, swords, bows, and many other items were built with the express purpose of killing. The assumption is that killing, in and of itself, is wrong. That is not the case. Killing animals for meat is what predatory omnivores do- sorry, but whining won't change that. Killing in self defense is morally justified and right. The idea of refusing to take responsibility for your own life is what is wrong. Every individual has a responsibilty to their loved ones and to civilization as a whole to take action to ensure their own safety.

When I have someone trying to preach at me, I throw it right back to them- expecially if they have kids.

"Who is going to take care of your children if you do not take the responsibility to ensure your own survival?!?" "What kind of a father would let some criminal decide whether he lives or dies?" "What kind of a message are you sending to your children by saying that they are not responsible for themselves?" "Coward" works too.

I am a gun owning pacifist. The only way to truly remain a pacifist is by NEVER using force on another person, unless that person visits force on you. In that event, you have to be able to nullify and return that force. The refusal to return force dos not make one a pacifist- rather, it is the definition of passive victim. Even prey animals fight back with every weapon in their arsenal.
 
My response to that is "I am sure the families of all the people killed by cars will be happy to know that the death of their loved one doesn't count, since the car was not designed to do that."
 
Guns were not invented to give us a fun leisure activity.
Click to expand...

No, but they sure do. And why should we not be allowed to pursue it AND use a gun for self defense if necessary?

I for one have never used a gun in self defense, and hope I never have to. If that's all I wanted one for I wouldn't need as many as I have. I enjoy shooting - at the range, plinking in the field, hunting, etc. That's where I use guns 100% of the time. The fact that I keep one around for self defense at certain times is just an added benefit to me, not the be all and end all reason for my gun ownership, and it doesn't have to be.
 
Next time, ask an anti these questions:

"Why do rabbits have claws on their feet?"

"Why does a platypus have a venomous spike in its hind leg?"

"Why does a bee have a stinger?"

The answer is to defend themselves, or in the case of the bee, to defend their home.

So are claws, spikes and stingers "bad" and should we outlaw them as well?
 
a gun was designed and created for the purpose of destruction (generally killing).
Click to expand...

Tell her to forget what it was designed for, and think about what it is... a tool. People are very innovative and come up with many different uses for a tool other than what it was designed for. Ask her to come up with a list of tools that have only ever, and will only ever be used for their intended purposes. I imagine it will be very short! My guns may have been designed to kill but that isn't what I do with them. It is all up to the person behind the gun.
 
With apology to the OP. This applies in your case also

Acknowledging that a gun is an inanimate object, the difference between it and a car is that a gun was designed and created for the purpose of destruction (generally killing).
Click to expand...

First, take notes of everything she says in her argument. Then tell her,

A gun is designed for killing, yes...
You can kill game to feed yourself.
You can kill a serial rapist and preserve the dignity of yourself or another, as well as save families from the anguish of a loved one being brutalized.
You can kill an unlawful intruder who has broken the sanctity of your home and threatened your family.
You can Kill tyrants to preserve your freedom and your way of life.
You can kill a raging grizzly bear who WILL eat you if you do not.

Now, get ALL of your kitchen knives out of the drawer and repeat back every argument she has made to you, except replace "guns" with "knives".

Make the same argument that every gun grabber makes. Such as,

Those things make me feel bad...
There are just too many of them...
They are just too easy to get...
Don't you think there should be background checks...
Those things are only designed for stabbing and slashing...
If it saves even one child's life....

Don't expect to "win" and argument with her. Gently persuade her and show her there is another way to think about it.

Then take her to the range!
 
Guns are bad. They're only designed for killing people.
Click to expand...

People who put other people in a, “Kill or be killed” situation need to be killed first. People who do not believe these situations happen are naive.
 
People fear what they do not understand, and rightly so; an ignorant person fiddling with an unattended firearm could easily harm someone or him/herself. The key is education. Once a person comes to understand how guns work, how to handle them safely, and how to shoot, they no longer fear them.

(In theory, at least. )
Click to expand...

I saw a few minutes of a Students for Concealed Carry on Campus meeting today on C-Span. One of their tenets is the importance of gun education in achieving their organizations goals and this was stated quite simply and eloquently.

Another speaker said that recent history included a slow erosion of rights in this area, and that it would take time and effort to "roll them back".

Yet another speaker said it was important to be the "calm, reasoned person" in all of these situations, that appearance is important.

I think I may actually understand a little of this. And, while I do not have the time or money to make this my life's work, I can still be a positive force rather than a negative one. :)
 
SapperMapper beat me to it.

I was going to suggest that you ask her why kitties have claws.
 
Luckily, My wife is OK with having a firearm in the house. Unfortunately, when we return to the states in January, I will be taking possession of my deceased mother's firearms.

The other night, I got into the classic "Why do you need to keep more than one gun in the house?" argument.

Now, I plan on buying a locker of some type, just to keep the kids away from the "extra" firearms I inherited. My carry/HD weapon will be kept in a biometric safe, so I can still have a pistol in condition 1 without having to worry about the kids.

My counter argument was "what's the difference between having 1 gun loaded and having one gun loaded with 10 others unloaded in a secured firearms locker?"

She didn't have much to say after that. She tried to make the argument that "She was uncomfortable with having that many guns in the house" But I asked her to connect that FEELING to a tangible fact or logic, she was unable to do so.
 
I think it was on this board that I read:
A firearm is designed to initiate and contain an ignition to propel a projectile along a repeatable trajectory.
Click to expand...
If it was designed to kill, then 99.99% have failed ( http://gunsafe.org/position statements/Guns and crime.htm ).
It's the intent of the wielder that determines the application. It could be competition, hunting, marksmanship, or, yes homicide. Even then, the homicide may be justified. That is called defense. And that is the true reason we have handguns. The saying in the first days of modern revolvers was
God made men and women, Samuel Colt made them equal.
Click to expand...
It means criminals must fear good people, and cannot have their way with us. It means we can protect our children, and that we need not succumb to evil.:)
 
If it was designed to kill, then 99.99% have failed...
Click to expand...

It WAS designed to kill. The fact that 99.99% have not been used to kill is a testament to the effectiveness of their design.

99.99% of people who have one pointed at them don't want to die - and stop doing whatever it was that got one pointed at them in the first place.
 
Guns are an equalizer. Before guns were invented, the earth was ruled by the biggest, strongest man. Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Charlegmagne, Alexander the Great - none of those societies were democratic during the rule of the strong man, nor did they protect the rights of women and minorities. A gun makes it possible for a small person to defend themselves against a big person.

What do you think would happen in a big city if a wall were suddenly put up around it and all guns were magically eliminated? In a few days you would have a brutal dictatorship ruled by a few great big strong and very mean guys.
 
When you're dealing with antis and this guy was an anti, you're dealing with pure emotion. Logical arguments usually have no effect. I am surprised he said you had a point. Usually they just keep repeating the "guns are bad/kill people" propaganda.

Good job for at least trying and maybe making some ground.
 
Proverbs says that `...a controversey with a fool is never a calm matter.` Fools think they know it all with all the answers and how things are and should be. I have experienced such fools. I have learned this about them. There is no hope that they will listen and learn. Don`t waste time talking to them trying to convince them. They will only become more angry and established in their wrong belliefs. Many will become violent and try to hurt you any possible way they can. Simply speaking, such persons can only learn by the hard way. The sooner they learn the hard way, the better for everyone. Whatever the hard way that`s required for them to learn, so be it. I have learned that when confronted by a person with an anti personality, to keep a distance from them, keep an eye on them and give them a warning when they get too close.
 
Last edited:
playing with dynamite...

But I asked her to connect that FEELING to a tangible fact or logic, she was unable to do so.
Click to expand...

That's cheating in any argument with a woman, especially a wife. Hope you liked sleeping on the sofa for a couple of days.:neener:
 
My wife was not real thrilled about having guns, I told her to just watch the local news and read the papers and pay attention to all the crimes committed to unarmed people. After a week she said "When can I get my gun?" I replied "today".
 
Guns are an equalizer. Before guns were invented, the earth was ruled by the biggest, strongest man. Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Charlegmagne, Alexander the Great - none of those societies were democratic during the rule of the strong man, nor did they protect the rights of women and minorities. A gun makes it possible for a small person to defend themselves against a big person.

What do you think would happen in a big city if a wall were suddenly put up around it and all guns were magically eliminated? In a few days you would have a brutal dictatorship ruled by a few great big strong and very mean guys.
Click to expand...

Though I did not use this argument personally, I know one person who's mind was opened with this one. Thank you for posting it.

The other night, I got into the classic "Why do you need to keep more than one gun in the house?" argument.
Click to expand...

I get that one a lot. My response is "It's called a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs!" That usually goes over like a ton of bricks, but my collection is growing nonetheless! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
It's a Matter of Civil Rights
Replies
6
Views
449
Blackbeard
Blackbeard
M
  • Locked
What are your thoughts?
Replies
3
Views
413
Cal-gun Fan
C
Z
  • Locked
Gun Rights are Civil Rights
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Owen Sparks
O
W
  • Locked
Defining the Right of Self Defense By Handgun
Replies
4
Views
423
Standing Wolf
S
L
  • Locked
Am I reading this right?
Replies
2
Views
329
Jeff White
J
Back
Top