Ban every gun

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Guns have literally never done anything productive in human history. All they do is kill people or destroy things. Ban them all, put any gunowner in prison longer than every drug offender.

This thread can be the lightning rod for the political mess coming out of the Massacre in Aurora this morning.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Every thief, burglar, rapist, and murderer killed with a gun, is a good thing.

 

[Dave]

I understand why you'd feel this way and I actually agree to some measure, but I disagree to the overall premise.

Putting gun owners in jail is just stupid unless they've broken a law. Of course, if guns were illegal and they still had them then I suppose, but I don't see this as happening.

I just want everyone to know that this thread will be watched and personal attacks from anyone about anyone will be DELETED without delay. Posts quoting those will either also be deleted or edited, depending on the amount of time I have.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I of course mean gunowners that exist AFTER some reasonable time to turn in your gun / destroy it / whatever. Not current gun owners.[DOUBLEPOST=1342800142][/DOUBLEPOST]

Every thief, burglar, rapist, and murderer killed with a gun, is a good thing.

Wow, I cannot fathom a viewpoint where you believe theft is a killable offense. I guess the nicest way to put it is that I disagree with this statement absolutely.

 

[strawman]

Guns have literally never done anything productive in human history.

 

[Covar]

I intend to respond to Charlie with the amount of attention a thread like this deserves.

 

[Dave]

He's entitled to his opinion just like everyone else.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

The human history thing is kind of a stretch, I'll even admit. But I just don't see killing people or animals as productive.

 

[Espy]

I'm all for it. I think we should ban anything that can be used to kill another person.

 

[Dave]

Water? What if I drown you?

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I'm all for it. I think we should ban anything that can be used to kill another person.

I support banning guns because their sole purpose is killing other people. Machetes cut through brush and can cut lots of stuff that isn't a human body. If there's a practical use for a shotgun other than killing, I'd love to hear it, I honestly don't know of one.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I don't think outlawing guns in the way to go. Contrary to the thread title, guns do have productive use. From hunting for food, to defending against wild animals, to recreational target shooting, there are many uses for guns that don't involve shooting people.

I'm a gun owner. I've got a few if them, and I enjoy sport shooting. I like guns in general, but even saying that, I would support stricter gun control. Not a ban, but licensing required to purchase a gun I could get behind, similar to the licensing required to operate a vehicle.

 

[Frank]

Any farmer will disagree. My grandpa was loathe to shoot anything, but when a grizzly came lumbering right up to the farmhouse when I was 11 and my brothers were 7 and 5 and we were camping on his front yard, what choice does he have? My grandfather may very well have saved my life.

 

[Espy]

sole purpose is killing other people.

And there we go. Remember people if you aren't thinking in black and white terms then you aren't doing it right.

 

[Dave]

Stop prosecuting drug offenses and start greater enforcement of EXISTING gun laws. You'd go a long way to stopping this sort of thing.

 

[strawman]

I wonder. As a species would we really have progressed as far as we have without projectile weapons? Would we still be, essentially, bush people if the only method of defense against predators was hand to hand combat? We'd probably be putting a lot more effort into defense than industrialization if we didn't make it so easy - trivial, almost - to take another life from a safe distance. I'm not even talking about other humans, I'm thinking bears, lions, tigers, dingos, hyenas, bobcats, and even the smaller animals in larger numbers, not to mention herbivores that are dangerous such as buffalo.

 

[Dave]

We'd probably be speaking Cherokee. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[Frank]

It wasn't guns that conquered North America, it was sweet, sweet plague.

 

[Dave]

It wasn't guns that conquered North America, it was sweet, sweet plague.

Our boomsticks helped.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Wow, I cannot fathom a viewpoint where you believe theft is a killable offense. I guess the nicest way to put it is that I disagree with this statement absolutely.

So Charlie, when you are in someone's home rifling through their jewelry, and the owner comes in and has you cornered and he's unarmed. Do you kill him and make your escape scott free or turn yourself in and go to prison for 5 years?

They are desperate enough to take from you, they are desperate enough to get rid of witnesses.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

 

[Dave]

In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

I play with a flight simulator. I'm never going to pilot a plane.

 

[Covar]

We'd probably be speaking Cherokee. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Speak for yourself. My great-grandparents were the first in my families to come here to America, being from different countries, without immigrating to NY it's unlikely I would exist. I'm perfectly happy with how things turned out.

 

[Frank]

In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

The farm my grandfather owned for decades. Likely long before that bear was alive.

And the bear was male. So, if it's children were nearby, it probably would eaten them too.

Fuck off.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I masturbate furiously, but will never "sleep" with another woman.

 

[Covar]

In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

So it would have been okay had the bear killed them? Props Charlie, props.

 

[strawman]

Hunter/gatherer/nomads don't develop electronics. They spend most of their time in finding food and defense. I doubt they would have ever figured out that most of their infant deaths had to do with conflicting blood type of the parents.

Remember the time when your whole village took up pitchforks to try and kill the animal that killed the child the other day, just to get rid of the menace, knowing that if they didn't it would procreate and you'd have an even bigger problem next year? I think there's a lot of thinks we take for granted from the comfort of our homes that we would be seriously worried about if we didn't go through that period in our history and have the weapons available today.

 

[Frank]

So it would have been okay had the bear killed them? Props Charlie, props.

Yeah, the PETA method of everything is more important than humans.

 

[Covar]

Yeah, the PETA method of everything is more important than humans.

I'm sure there will just be claims of putting words in his mouth.

 

[strawman]

So it would have been okay had the bear killed them? Props Charlie, props.

Charlie's comments suggest that he is of the opinion that it would be ok for the bear to kill to protect its cubs, but humans aren't allowed to kill to protect their children. Because we don't have claws or teeth sufficient to defend ourselves without tools, then we must put ourselves in our proper biological place on the food chain and submit ourselves to the whims of the animals around us.[DOUBLEPOST=1342803111][/DOUBLEPOST]

And there we go. Remember people if you aren't thinking in black and white terms then you aren't doing it right.

Moderation is for the weak!

Besides, this place woulds be pretty boring if we were all reasonable and didn't immediately jump to and discuss extremes.

Your mouth is a weapon that should be banned.

 

[Ravenpoe]

In reference to the bear story above, you were most likely living somewhere near that bear's den where its children lived. What gives you the right to that area over the bear? It was defending its home, just like your granddad.

Also in response to the target shooting. That's all practice to be better at shooting living things, isn't it?

It's to get better at shooting, in my case, for more targets. I've never fired a gun at a living thing, despite firing my first gun at 11. I don't have any moral quandaries about shooting animals, I just don't want to. And I do have moral problems against shooting another person (I hope everyone would).

The closest I've ever come would be firing into the ground to scare off some wild dogs that had come onto my property.

 

[drifter]

I wonder. As a species would we really have progressed as far as we have without projectile weapons? Would we still be, essentially, bush people if the only method of defense against predators was hand to hand combat? We'd probably be putting a lot more effort into defense than industrialization if we didn't make it so easy - trivial, almost - to take another life from a safe distance. I'm not even talking about other humans, I'm thinking bears, lions, tigers, dingos, hyenas, bobcats, and even the smaller animals in larger numbers, not to mention herbivores that are dangerous such as buffalo.

It's not like bush people didn't develop projectile weapons. Pretty much every culture on Earth has some form of throwing spear, sling, bow and arrow, etc. As far as I am aware the rise of humanity has largely been attributed to agriculture; having a known food base allowed for stable communities to develop, which lead to everything else. In terms of defense, a big fence is probably more useful than projectile weapons.

 

[LordRendar]

I am all for regulating guns.I think only 9% of houldholds carry guns in Germany and unless you belong to an Armed Service you arent allowed to carry it outside of your home unless you have a special permit,which is almost impossible to get (people living under higher threat like private security,politicians,etc).Even to carry a signal flare you have to get a permit.

And to be honest,im pretty glad that we have those laws.Ofcourse there are criminals that have guns,but they almost never have access to large caliber guns.Those that do usualy belong to organized crime rings.
But I never have to worry that if I attend a concert or other public event that I will be in danger of getting shot.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Fuck the bear analogy, I don't care.

People can still shoot for sport if they want, but it's still murder practice to me. Maybe there can be firing ranges where the guns stay, but even then, that makes them fairly attractive to steal.

 

[Frank]

Fuck the bear analogy, I don't care.

It wasn't an analogy, it was my real life experience of being a scared shitless 11 year old in a tent watching a large brown bear pawing around not 10 meters away.