(October 25, 2013 at 7:59 pm)pocaracas Wrote: unless some people count as animals...

What do you mean by "unless"? People are of the animal kingdom.

Some people who use guns see no difference between hunting for sustenance game and harming people.

(October 25, 2013 at 7:41 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Chas Wrote: And my firearms have other uses besides killing people.

Firearms' sole use is to injure and/or kill things. It's what they were created to do.

An argument from ignorance.

Trap, skeet, sporting clays, target competition, biathlon. cowboy competion, etc.

(October 25, 2013 at 9:34 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 7:41 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Firearms' sole use is to injure and/or kill things. It's what they were created to do.

An argument from ignorance.

Trap, skeet, sporting clays, target competition, biathlon. cowboy competion, etc.

I don't think guns were created for any of those reasons.

Quote:Trap, skeet, sporting clays, target competition, biathlon. cowboy competion, etc.

A gun's sole function is to fire a bullet. The gun does not care what the target is, it is an inanimate object doing the only thing it is truly useful for doing. So when you compare it to an SUV running someone over you have gone off the deep end. The SUV is designed to provide transportation not death. People choke to death on fish bones, too. The fish bone is not a "weapon."

FFF says that he is a responsible gun owner and from his description it sounds as if he is. But how many of those people in your list of gun heroes had their weapons properly stored and locked away? It is hard to tell if any of them did. It seems unlikely.

Which is really the point, after all. In order for that gun to be of value it has to be ready for action at a moment's notice. Loaded and accessible. A home invader is not going to stand there while you get your gun out of the safe and load it. The problem with "responsible" gun owner as a concept is that they are all "responsible" until something happens. "Responsibility" is determined ex post facto.

So it is mere dumb luck that your pastor - (an armed pastor....think about that one for a moment!) - who pulled out his gun to confront the robber was a short step away from the guy in my list who blew his own balls off.

(October 26, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: an armed pastor....think about that one for a moment!

Less than a moment required - that's just nucking futs! A local pastor's wife is in my range course applying for her CCW. LOL - Jesus' shields must be down.

(October 26, 2013 at 1:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Trap, skeet, sporting clays, target competition, biathlon. cowboy competion, etc.

A gun's sole function is to fire a bullet. The gun does not care what the target is, it is an inanimate object doing the only thing it is truly useful for doing. So when you compare it to an SUV running someone over you have gone off the deep end. The SUV is designed to provide transportation not death. People choke to death on fish bones, too. The fish bone is not a "weapon."

FFF says that he is a responsible gun owner and from his description it sounds as if he is. But how many of those people in your list of gun heroes had their weapons properly stored and locked away? It is hard to tell if any of them did. It seems unlikely.

Which is really the point, after all. In order for that gun to be of value it has to be ready for action at a moment's notice. Loaded and accessible. A home invader is not going to stand there while you get your gun out of the safe and load it. The problem with "responsible" gun owner as a concept is that they are all "responsible" until something happens. "Responsibility" is determined ex post facto.

So it is mere dumb luck that your pastor - (an armed pastor....think about that one for a moment!) - who pulled out his gun to confront the robber was a short step away from the guy in my list who blew his own balls off.

A gun that is at the ready is not unsafe if it is the control of the possessor. Safe storage is for guns that are not under one's control.

There are fast access safes and locks, as well.

The primary purpose of a bow is fire a projectile - shall we ban those as well?

Look, the discussion should center around practical approaches. All I hear in this thread is that guns are evil, let's demonize the owners and get rid of the guns.

There are 300,000,000 guns in civilian possession in the U.S. Those guns are not going away. That is your starting point. Offer up constructive approaches to what you think are the issues.

I have done so in another thread. I'm tired of the lack of ideas in this one.

(October 26, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Chas Wrote: There are 300,000,000 guns in civilian possession in the U.S. Those guns are not going away.

Yep... this is one major point.
Almost one gun per person.

In Portugal, most civilians who do have guns have hunting rifles and keep them properly secured... most of them, at least.
And they use them for real hunting... hunting birds and rabbits and little else.

Other firearms are scarce in the civilian population.
And I feel they're not necessary. After 33 years in the country's largest city, I have yet to encounter a situation where the possession of a firearm would have kept me out of trouble.
Yes, we do have drugs addicts, and robbers, and some form of mob, but it's mostly invisible to the majority of the population.
Most street robbers use knives... if anything at all, besides their fists.
It also helps if you avoid tough locations.


Even if you are carrying a gun, you'd need to be properly trained, spend hours and hours every year practicing and spending money on it, just to decrease the odds of your gun ending up in the assailant's hands... or you misfiring and injuring a bystander.
That's where my question earlier on came from "would you fire first?" There seems to be too many conditionals going into the reply that, by the time you deem it "safe", the other guy may have already done some damage...

A few months ago, I remember a bill where people traded their guns for something I can't remember... it seems to have been enough to persuade a few gun-owners... perhaps it's worthwhile to continue with that program, extend it to any fire-arm... It seems to be one way of peacefully removing guns from civilians' hands.

(October 26, 2013 at 7:56 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Chas Wrote: There are 300,000,000 guns in civilian possession in the U.S. Those guns are not going away.

Yep... this is one major point.
Almost one gun per person.

In Portugal, most civilians who do have guns have hunting rifles and keep them properly secured... most of them, at least.
And they use them for real hunting... hunting birds and rabbits and little else.

Other firearms are scarce in the civilian population.
And I feel they're not necessary. After 33 years in the country's largest city, I have yet to encounter a situation where the possession of a firearm would have kept me out of trouble.
Yes, we do have drugs addicts, and robbers, and some form of mob, but it's mostly invisible to the majority of the population.
Most street robbers use knives... if anything at all, besides their fists.
It also helps if you avoid tough locations.


Even if you are carrying a gun, you'd need to be properly trained, spend hours and hours every year practicing and spending money on it, just to decrease the odds of your gun ending up in the assailant's hands... or you misfiring and injuring a bystander.
That's where my question earlier on came from "would you fire first?" There seems to be too many conditionals going into the reply that, by the time you deem it "safe", the other guy may have already done some damage...

A few months ago, I remember a bill where people traded their guns for something I can't remember... it seems to have been enough to persuade a few gun-owners... perhaps it's worthwhile to continue with that program, extend it to any fire-arm... It seems to be one way of peacefully removing guns from civilians' hands.

There have been 'gun buy-back' programs in several cities over the years. They have had some success, but it is at tax-payers' expense. Some see that as problematic.

How about all the anti-gunners donate to a non-profit organization to buy guns from gun owners (for destruction)? I think Bloomberg and Soros could easily seed that fund.

(October 26, 2013 at 8:55 pm)Chas Wrote: There have been 'gun buy-back' programs in several cities over the years. They have had some success, but it is at tax-payers' expense. Some see that as problematic.

How about all the anti-gunners donate to a non-profit organization to buy guns from gun owners (for destruction)? I think Bloomberg and Soros could easily seed that fund.

I may have missed something on that "Bloomberg and Soros" reference...

Yes, it's the taxpayer that has to pay... of course... anything country-wide must be implemented with tax-payers money.... it's the same everywhere.

It was the taxpayer who allowed people to own those guns in the first place.
It's the taxpayer who finances many gun factories... sounds like a futile waste of money, doesn't it?

(October 26, 2013 at 1:33 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 9:34 pm)Chas Wrote: An argument from ignorance.

Trap, skeet, sporting clays, target competition, biathlon. cowboy competition, etc.

I don't think guns were created for any of those reasons.

You may consider it nuance, but I think the gun's main use is not to kill but to intimidate. It is used to scare someone into parting with their money and it is used to scare an attacker into stopping. That it is sometimes used to actually go through with the threat is an inevitable backup of the threat. Never the less, I think guns are brandished to intimidate much much more than they are ever fired.

Why do so many Americans seem to be so in love with the intimidation factor of the gun? I have a CCW for specific trips, in specific dangers. I haven't carried in the general public in many many years, because I don't need to intimidate anyone anymore. I don't need to scare someone into leaving me alone.

What do you guys think?