would you give up your guns?

if guns cause violence, do pencils misspell words? (someone may have said this already i didn't read through)

 

cigarettes cause cancer and promote it. yet they are still legal and people still use that shit every day...
just because you are against guns dosent mean everyone else has to be. if you dont like them then dont own them but leave the rest of us alone.

And is the rest of the world really doing fine without the second amendment and without guns? Look at the crime rate in some European countries. It far exceeds ours! look at places in africa where these gangs are the the only ones have guns and the unarmed citizens are nothing but target practice and slaves...same thing with iraq and the afgan countries...its only the terrorists that have the guns and look how shitty it is over there. What if every house had a gun? I bet those shit eater would think twice before they pull some of the shit they do.

 

we're glad you don't live here either

 

i voted..i would hand them over. but that isnt completely true..i would fight. legally. i am not going down firing a bit dramatic dont you think?

you guys would barricade yourself and fire on the LEO?

 

What makes you afraid of your law-abiding, gun-owning neighbors or think that because they have a gun, they would want to kill you or anyone else?

 

Also: http://www.essex1.com/pages/chuckbri/amazingthings.html

 

No I don't.

Abuse of an object (vehicle, prescription drug, firearm) is not the same thing as using it for it's intended purpose.

Hydrocodone when used properly is a pain-killer and cough suppressant.

Automobiles when used properly transport human beings and cargo from location to location.

Firearms when used properly destroy or damage the target they are used against.

I'm not talking about abuse, operator error, irresponsible/illeagal usage or other unintended actions. Automobile deaths and firearm deaths and hydrocodone deaths are non-comparible, because of the three, only one's designed purpose is to cause death.

Guns are not built to commit crimes. I never said they were. Just like cars aren't built to run over schoolchildren. I am simply stating that you cannot compare automobile and firearm death statistics because of the nature of their designed intentions.

 

I think he illustrated those fears with his scenarios: Road Rage, Cheating Wife, etc.

It's not the law-abiding ones that scare him -- it's the law-abiding ones that rapidly become non-law-abiding ones simply because they possess a firearm.

 

You've repeated this mantra often enough that I feel obligated to respond.

Yeah, guns are made to destroy. OK, so what? Gun control advocates inherently argue that they are not safe. This merits a comparison to other legal things that we have that are not safe, particularly those things that we could replace with something else. Cars are dangerous and could be feasibly replaced with something else (public transportation) and therefore the comparison is merited.

What is being compared is general safety, not its intended function. Point is, we don't have to have guns OR cars, we could get rid of them both. If you want to get rid of my guns but not my cars, I want to know why.

The general impression I get from most gun control advocates is that they like cars and have them, but fear guns and do not have them. Therefore, they don't give a crap if what I like to do for fun (go to the range) is trampled and don't care if I'm rendered unable to protect myself as I see fit, they want the world their way.

Back to their "purpose". Yes, guns are meant to destroy things. Frankly, so is a circular saw. Oh wait!! But a circular saw is meant to destroy wood for the purposes of making it into a bookshelf. Or whatever. True. A hunting rifle is meant to turn a deer into tasty deer jerky.

But back to your point. A gun's purpose is destruction. Yeah, why is that not a legitimate purpose? After all, what would you rather do in self defense besides use a gun, assuming you have to? In short, what exactly is your point? Because they are built for different purposes, we cannot contrast the safety of guns vs other items?

To qualify that statement: I do not ever want to harm anyone with any of my firearms. I take precautions to make sure they are stored and used in a safe manner, always obey the four rules religiously, and am as certain as I can be that no accidental harm will come because of them. I do not get off on the idea of shooting somebody like a minority of gun owners seem to, an attitude I find disgusting. On the other hand, if needed, it is there, despite me wishing I never have to use it, just like an air bag or fire extinguisher.

 

But, by definition, gun control removes guns from the law abiding ones. That is the problem with gun control itself in a nutshell.

 

Some of these posts reek of stupidity.

 

I think everyone should have a robust, heavy battle rifle like an M1 Garand or one of its variants.

 

Yes. It is a legitimate purpose. I never argued otherwise. It is the intended purpose of a firearm, and (hopefully) the reason that a person (myself included) owns a firearm -- aside from collecting, obviously.

Yep. It's an invalid comparison.

The point of the argument, is that as a method of comparison, automobiles and firearms are not comparable. One is intended to be dangerous. The other is not. It's like me saying that this Orange is more satisfying than this Book. Satisfying in what manner? Nutritionally? Intellectually? Spiritually?

The inherent safety of a firearm is infinitely less than that of a motor vehicle, because when operated properly, as designed, it is meant to be dangerous. A motor vehicle is not.

 

I agree but to a point. When the firearm is used for protection there is no issue with it. As I would only use it to protect myself and family from death. I don't mind giving away some money in a robbery but a criminal in my home wanting to contain us to do with as he/she pleases is a no no.

With out guns the world would be a much different place. If you were to remove all guns from everyone then I would be ok with that, but to have the military and law enforcement retain their weapons and remove mine is a hell no. Because they are lead by criminals/politicians.

 

I really did not want to get involved in this argument but here we go again.

A gun by itself does not do anything. Much like a chair it is an inanimate object that if misused can lead to death. If you were hit on the back of the head with a 2x4 you would likely due because of scull fracture and brain hemorrhage. And yet if you take a piece of 2x4 and carve it into a baseball bat you can play.. whats that american sport.. ohh the baseball. Likewise you can take a gun and give it into hands of some wondershot dude giving a firearm presentation and he will shoot a dime 400 yards away while blindfolded standing on one toe and surrounded by rattle snakes.

Here is my fear of guns. Yes a fear. I am single but if I was married with kids and my child went to visit his friends house and they happened to find an adult returning from a hunting trip or a visit to a shooting range who left his weapons on a table to clean... next thing you know while that person is in the bathroom a gunshot goes off and either my child or his friend were shot because one got it into his head to point gun at the other and pretend fire.. but there was one bullet left in the chamber. I am afraid of the fact that I have to babysit my children in someone else's house and handcuff them to me so that they dont accidentally develop an urge to play cowboys and accidentally stumble on said weapon(s).

I am also afraid that as I am typing this... there could be someone cleaning his gun in a house next to mine and accidentally discharge said weapon killing me or my loved ones because bullet took a freak once in a million trajectory and hit a human being.

I am also afraid that while driving to one of my dive trips through state of florida that somewhere on one of those 1 lane highways some bozo might be hunting for quail or just randomly shooting at beer bottles and accidentally shoots through my window and kills me or my passengers.

I am also afraid that as a human being I need to be afraid because world is full of irresponsible people.

Maybe I am completely wrong but after spending most of my life traveling around the world to 30 some countries, never once had I encountered a nation having same exact dilemma that america has. People either own hunting guns or they dont.. and thats fine by me.. but I am fairly certain that they do not have 6-20 guns in their home just because some day.. the world might implode and there will be a time when you will need to have 4 pistols, 3 shotguns, 4 rifles, 1 automatic rifle, 1 semi automatic rifle, 1 uzi, 2 long barrel rifles and 1000 bullets for each weapon.

May be its just me but as soon as I moved to florida I submerged myself into a state full of people who casually talk about how many guns they have in their household. I lived up north for 7 years and I think I have only seen 1 person who had a gun out and that was a 1800 something thing hanging on the wall as a decorative piece.

 

^^^ I was attempting to keep the classifications simple, but yes, a firearm by itself doesn't do anything. Guns, cars, chairs, books are all inanimate objects. It does all come down to the operator.

But then you delve into more tree-branching arguments like philosophy, intent, attitude, training, aptitude, etc. For the sake of brevity, I rolled the object/operator into one.

I've seen the same situations you speak of worldwide. But my opinion is that it stems less from an American's sense of "rights" to the American mindset of opulence.

We stockpile arms, collect weapons, get the latest and greatest not because we NEED to, or are defending some "right," but because we can AFFORD to.

I bet that if it came down between a person's third rifle and tomorrow's meal, you would see a lot less multiple-gun ownerships.

 

With that rifle you could go out and get your meal.

 

A firearm is not meant to be dangerous any more than dynamite, a wrecking ball, or other destructive construction equipment. It is dangerous as a by-product of what it does. And, in any event, so is a car.

If you're going to push the notion that the safety of two different things, when being used for their intended function, cannot be compared, then I can't help you.

 

Firearms were designed to kill (even if just paper). Automobiles were not. We can agree that one will do just as much carnage as the other. It ALWAYS depends on the operator.

 

LostHumanity- is your position just that you would give then up only in a localized temporary situation (ie a disaster zone) or that you would give them up permanently (ie gun confiscation like the UK)